Customer satisfaction lacking for prostitute client

JOSH FAGAN
Last updated 14:56 25/03/2014

Relevant offers

Better Business

Economic agency wants to keep LookSee Wellington 'hot prospects alive' Benefits, impacts of proposed Motueka-Whanganui ferry service questioned Work schedules and team selection should consider body clock time Briscoe silent on Kathmandu, but says ASX listing would create 'opportunities' Company, manager and director fined almost $200k for false alpaca claims Women need to fight for top positions, 26-year-old general manager says Governance awards reveal gender diversity champions Denied by government: Dev Academy seeks Iwi funding for Te Reo coding programme Mike O'Donnell: A timely lesson in what works for tech businesses Supplement firm fined for claiming Chinese product was NZ-made

A man who tried to sue a prostitute to get a refund on an incomplete "session" has had his lawsuit dismissed by a judge as frivolous and vexatious.

The man, identified in court papers only as Mr N, sought more than $80,000 in compensation and damages in the High Court in Auckland. He said he had not stayed for the full two hours he paid for the last time he met the prostitute.

He also claimed the prostitute, identified in court as Ms M, owed him compensation for a mobile phone he had given her to arrange their weekly meetings.

The pair had been in a two-month contractual sexual relationship but their last "session" ended in a verbal disagreement at a brothel in February 2012.

The court was told Ms M attempted to return the money and the mobile phone after the dispute, but Mr N had refused to accept them.

Ms M filed for a restraining order against Mr N on May 15, 2012. The five-year order was eventually granted on May 9, 2013, but the problems with her former client didn't stop there, the court judgment shows.

Among Mr N's civil proceedings through the courts were claims Ms M breached the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, that she had defamed him and that she had gained unjust enrichment.

Mr N initially sought damages for $4000, but later filed for $84,800, claiming Ms M breached his privacy.

Justice Peter Woodhouse struck out each claim, labelling Mr N's persistent legal proceedings a "sinister use of the court's processes".

"Not only am I satisfied the proceedings are frivolous but I also believe they are vexatious," the judge said.

The judgment continued that the proceeding should be struck out because it was an abuse of process and a further attempt to victimise and harass Ms M through litigation.

Ad Feedback

- Fairfax Media

Special offers

Featured Promotions

Sponsored Content