RHH LIMITED v ANDERSON (No.3) [2018] NZHC 2045

RHH LIMITED v ANDERSON (No.3) [2018] NZHC 2045

Leave to require defendants to answer interrogatories was refused because the plaintiffs served interrogatories late relative to the close of pleadings, causing potential prejudice and disruption; notwithstanding the defendants' failure to respond, case management considerations and the need to protect the timetable outweighed the plaintiffs' complaint and justified dismissal under r 7.7.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2045
Parties
First Plaintiff: RHH LIMITED; Second Plaintiff: JOSEF CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS; First Defendant: SANDRINE ANDERSON; Second Defendant: HELICE PROPERTIES LIMITED; Non Party: MIRIAM ROBERTS
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil (interlocutory Applications Concerning Discovery and Interrogatories) / Interlocutory — Application for Leave Under R 7.7 High Court Rules to Serve Interrogatories After Close of Pleadings
Outcome
Application dismissed; leave under r 7.7 High Court Rules refused
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Leave to Take Steps After Close of Pleadings, Non Party Discovery, Costs
Civil Procedure Discovery Pre Trial Case Management Interrogatories Leave to Take Steps After Close of Pleadings Non Party Discovery Costs

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

RHH LIMITED

First Plaintiff

JOSEF CHRISTOPHER ROBERTS

Second Plaintiff

SANDRINE ANDERSON

First Defendant

HELICE PROPERTIES LIMITED

Second Defendant

MIRIAM ROBERTS

Non Party

Procedural Posture

Civil (interlocutory Applications Concerning Discovery and Interrogatories) / Interlocutory — Application for Leave Under R 7.7 High Court Rules to Serve Interrogatories After Close of Pleadings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under r 7.7 High Court Rules should be granted to require defendants to answer interrogatories served after or close to the close of pleadings date
  2. 2 Whether plaintiffs' late service of interrogatories justifies refusal of leave
  3. 3 Whether defendants suffered prejudice and disruption sufficient to refuse interlocutory relief

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to require defendants to answer interrogatories was refused because the plaintiffs served interrogatories late relative to the close of pleadings, causing potential prejudice and disruption; notwithstanding the defendants' failure to respond, case management considerations and the need to protect the timetable outweighed the plaintiffs' complaint and justified dismissal under r 7.7.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; leave under r 7.7 High Court Rules refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to require defendants to answer interrogatories dismissed
  • Defendants directed to file and serve further affidavit of documents and to make further discovery as ordered earlier