Harasser brings civil case against sex worker

A man who was rebuffed when he tried to make an exclusive arrangement with a sex worker has failed to get her lawyers barred from acting for her in a civil action he has mounted.

In a decision issued today, the Court of Appeal outlined some of the twists and turns in the dealings between the two since early 2012.

The identities of the  prostitute and her former client were suppressed.

She stopped seeing him when, in the course of showing her the features of a phone he was giving her, she  found he had been searching her car registration number.

He persisted through early 2012, was barred from the brothel where she worked and hired a private investigator to find out who she was and how to contact her, the Court of Appeal said.

Lawyers became involved, but the man would not back down.

He thought he could persuade her that he did not intend to find out her true identity. In turn, he wanted an apology for the hurt he said she had caused him.

In May 2013, a district court judge made a five-year harassment order against the man. That was reduced to one year on appeal to the High Court, and that year was already up by the time the appeal was decided.

In the meantime, the man had begun civil proceedings against the woman alleging several grounds, including a claim under the Consumer Guarantees Act that she had not provided services with reasonable care and skill because instead of giving him pleasure she had shown "unreasonably excessive negative emotions" during the incident with the phone.

The civil claim was struck out, but he secured a reduction in the costs awarded against him.

 Court of Appeal judge Justice Forrie Miller said the various court cases, including attempts to stop lawyers representing the woman, had spawned a remarkable number of preliminary applications.

The man has six appeals before the Court of Appeal. A hearing to decide preliminary issues was held last month.

The man tried to get the hearing adjourned but the court refused.

One of the judges said the man was clearly intelligent and capable, he had mastered the background materials and studied the authorities.

Justice Miller said the man's attempts to stop the woman's lawyers representing her were hopeless and were dismissed.

He and the other two judges refused the man's attempt to find out how the woman's lawyers were being paid. The man said her legal fees would have topped $400,000 but she said she was impecunious.

Justice Miller said how the lawyers were paid, or whether they were paid anything more than the costs ordered against the man if he lost, was no concern of the court.

The man was ordered to pay unspecified costs for the latest Court of Appeal proceedings.

Justice Miller said the costs should be on the normal scale, but the other two judges outvoted him and said the man should pay 50 per cent more than normal.