The High Court has issued a restraining order against controversial employment advocate Allan Halse preventing him from continuing to relitigate a “vexatious” claim because it is an abuse of process.

Although Halse can appeal the decision, such a restraining order is seen as a rare move because it denies a person their right to natural justice.

Halse, an anti-workplace bullying crusader, told the Herald he could not comment on the outcome.

The saga began in April 2018 when Halse signed a settlement agreement between Rangiura Trust Board, a charity that operates a rest home in Putaruru, and an employee after she made allegations of internal fraud.

Rangiura rest home in Putāruru where allegations of staff bullying began a long-running legal battle. Photo / Google Maps

The agreement included a clause that neither Halse nor Rangiura could disparage the other, but Halse later made disparaging remarks about the trust on social media.

That sparked a protracted legal dispute as the trust tried to enforce compliance by Halse with the agreement.

Halse eventually sought to judicially review 10 determinations of the Employment Relations Authority [ERA] and three decisions of the Employment Court related to Rangiura.

He went to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court without success and his company CultureSafe NZ was put into liquidation.

Halse then fended off bankruptcy with a last-minute payment of $67,335 in penalties stemming from the case.

In the latest litigation, Halse brought a claim against Rangiura, law firm Norris Ward McKinnon, and lawyers Sam Hood and Erin Anderson for deceit, fraud, conspiracy to defraud, and knowing assistance.

He claimed Rangiura and Norris Ward McKinnon had conspired to commit fraud to conceal the alleged internal fraud, bringing “bogus employment proceedings” against him for the purpose of closing down CultureSafe.

Halse accused Hood of facilitating the fraud with the intention of misleading tribunals to cause him loss, and that Anderson tricked him into signing the settlement agreement.

Norris Ward McKinnon managing partner Sam Hood represented the Rangiura Trust Board in multiple employment cases involving advocate Allan Halse. Photo / Supplied

At a hearing in April this year, the respondents sought a strike out of the claim, or alternatively a summary judgment, and the restraining order.

In a decision released this week, Justice Simon Moore struck out Halse’s application saying the claim itself was unclear and difficult to understand, obscure at one point, and “wholly misconceived” at another.

Justice Moore said Halse fell well short of showing evidence to support his allegations of deceit, dishonesty, and fraud.

He said the claim that Anderson procured Halse’s signature through deceit to cause him a loss was an allegation without evidence, and that the “deficiencies and defects in pleading” were so fundamental they could not be fixed by an amendment.

The allegation the law firm and lawyers knowingly assisted Rangiura in perpetrating the deceit and fraud was also struck out.

Moore said the proceedings in the High Court were “vexatious” because they were procedurally improper, justifying the strikeout.

“Furthermore, they are plainly an abuse of process because Mr Halse is misusing this court’s processes by commencing these proceedings in an attempt to obtain a collateral advantage, essentially the same claim as he has unsuccessfully brought in other tribunals and courts.”

Justice Moore said the High Court claim amounted to an attack on the previous ERA and Employment Court outcomes to undermine them, and the threshold was met to consider a restraining order in relation to the case.

This included that at least two proceedings in the matter were totally without merit because each cause of action pleaded was bound to fail.

Justice Simon Moore said Halse failed to “recognise the distinction between pleadings, evidence, and submission”. Photo / NZME

Along with the High Court proceeding, Justice Moore outlined two others without merit including one in the Court of Appeal.

In that proceeding Halse sought to judicially review 16 outcomes in the ERA, including 10 related to Rangiura, and seven Employment Court decisions.

Some of the determinations and decisions concerned the former Bay of Plenty District Health Board and Turuki Healthcare, though all arose from Halse breaching settlement agreements by making disparaging remarks.

One of Halse’s challenges was against a decision in his favour that granted him an extension of time, suggesting the selection of orders and decisions challenged in the “omnibus” application for review was “somewhat indiscriminate”, according to Court of Appeal.

Justice Moore said vexatiousness was at play, with Halse’s proceedings demonstrating an “entrenched pattern of behaviour”, characterised by refusal to accept adverse decisions.

Halse continued to make “extravagant and baseless allegations against a wide range of people, including judicial officers”, and there had been a failure to comply with the rules of the court - “something Mr Halse appears to flaunt with a level of pride”.

Justice Moore made an order restraining Halse from commencing or continuing civil proceedings on the case or any related matter in any senior court, another court or tribunal.

Halse said he had taken legal advice and could not comment on the judgment.

He previously told the Herald the case against him was a strategic legal action against public participation, or Slapp, to prevent him from speaking out against workplace bullying.

Hood, a managing partner at Norris Ward McKinnon, said extended restraining orders were not common.

“But given the judge’s findings regarding vexatiousness and the total lack of merit in various proceedings by Mr Halse, I’m not surprised the order was made.”

Auckland barrister Clive Elliott KC said while restraining orders were not unheard of, they were exercised sparingly to preserve access to justice.

“But the justice system operates under certain rules, and rules of engagement are really important if things are to be done fairly and properly.”

Elliott said if participants, including some advocates, felt they could do what they like the whole system was undermined.

If a lawyer made baseless allegations they would be held accountable by the Law Society but advocates were not subject to the same professional rules, Elliott said.

He said Justice Moore’s note that Halse failed to “recognise the distinction between pleadings, evidence, and submission”, was important to a fair process and getting to the truth of a matter.

However, Elliott pointed out the restraining order was not open-ended and said Halse could still file proceedings on other cases.

Natalie Akoorie is the Open Justice deputy editor, based in Waikato and covering crime and justice nationally. Natalie first joined the Herald in 2011 and has been a journalist in New Zealand and overseas for 27 years recently covering health, social issues, local government, and the regions.