Customer fails in attempt to sue prostitute for refund over incomplete sex 'session'
The unnamed customer and the sex worker, who were identified as Mr N and Ms M in court documents, had been in a two-month contractual relationship
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.A New Zealand man who tried to sue a prostitute for a refund on an incomplete sex "session" has had his case dismissed by a judge.
The unnamed customer and the sex worker, who were identified as Mr N and Ms M in court documents, had been in a two-month contractual sexual relationship.
According to reports from Fairfax News the pair's last session ended in a verbal disagreement at a brothel in 2012.
Mr N attempted to sue Ms M for $80,000 (£41,000) in compensation and damages, claiming that she had “gained unjust enrichment” and violated the country's Consumer Guarantees Act. He also claimed that Ms M had defamed him.
He initially attempted to claim damages for $4,000 (£2,000), but later filed for $84,800 (£43,000), claiming Ms M breached his privacy.
The court heard that Ms M had offered to return the money and a mobile phone, which was used to arrange the weekly meetings, but that Mr N had refused.
The court also heard that Ms M had filed for a restraining order against Mr N and that a five year order had been granted.
The case was struck out by judge Peter Woodhouse who described the legal proceedings as 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 judge ruled that the repeated attempts at litigation were an abuse of process and an attempt to victimise and harass Ms M.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments