Responding to abusive litigation : Bridgette Toy-Cronin Short v Short
By: Toy-Cronin, Bridgette A
.
Material type: 
ArticleSeries: New Zealand Women's Law Journal - Te Aho Kawe Kaupapa Ture a ngā Wāhine.Publisher: LexisNexis, 2022Subject(s): ABUSED WOMEN | COERCIVE CONTROL | EVIDENCE | FAMILY COURT | FAMILY LAW | HIGH COURT | INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE | JUSTICE | PERPETRATORS | PROTECTION ORDERS | PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE | VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE | NEW ZEALANDOnline resources: Read the article | NZWLJ, Volume 7, 2022
In:
New Zealand Women's Law Journal - Te Aho Kawe Kaupapa Ture a ngā Wāhine, 2022, 7: 64-76Summary: Short v Short raises important issues about how the court should conceptualise and prevent psychological abuse where the method of abuse is the court’s own proceedings. If it is a form of violence, as the Court found in Short v Short, is a protection order the correct response or are civil procedural
remedies best placed to restrain it? This case note discusses the concept of abusive litigation and the Family Court’s and High Court’s analysis, which frame the father as a misguided LiP. It argues that abusive litigation should be analysed as violence, not as vexatious litigation. It also argues that courts
should maintain a coercive control lens when deciding cases of this nature, so that the courts will be better equipped to recognise and respond to this form of abuse. (From the introduction). Record 8215
| Item type | Current location | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Access online
|
Family Violence library | Online | Available | ON23060003 |
New Zealand Women's Law Journal - Te Aho Kawe Kaupapa Ture a ngā Wāhine, 2022, 7: 64-76
Short v Short raises important issues about how the court should conceptualise and prevent psychological abuse where the method of abuse is the court’s own proceedings. If it is a form of violence, as the Court found in Short v Short, is a protection order the correct response or are civil procedural
remedies best placed to restrain it? This case note discusses the concept of abusive litigation and the Family Court’s and High Court’s analysis, which frame the father as a misguided LiP. It argues that abusive litigation should be analysed as violence, not as vexatious litigation. It also argues that courts
should maintain a coercive control lens when deciding cases of this nature, so that the courts will be better equipped to recognise and respond to this form of abuse. (From the introduction). Record 8215
