DIMAR TOOLS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED V JUDITH ANNE SKELLEY AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2007 470 633

DIMAR TOOLS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED V JUDITH ANNE SKELLEY AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2007 470 633

The Court refused the defendants' broad requests for invoices from 2000–2005 as fishing and unduly oppressive, but ordered limited discovery already provided (2005 annual accounts and bank statements) and allowed further targeted disclosure only if identified as relevant by engaged accountants; the Court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of $25,000 to be paid into the plaintiff's solicitor's trust account within one month because the plaintiff had no presence or asset base in New Zealand and enforcement in Australia would add expense and delay.

Citation
openlaw-e389ba75_cc8b_4354_adac_fbda094b31d1.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: DIMAR TOOLS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED; First Defendant: JUDITH ANNE SKELLEY; Second Defendant: MAX CHARLES SKELLEY; Third Defendant: CAROLYN SKELLEY; Fourth Defendant: J-MAX ENGINEERING & IRRIGATION LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 November 2008
Procedural Posture
Commercial Dispute (conversion; Fair Trading Act; Breach of Duties; Conspiracy) / Interlocutory Applications for Particular Discovery and Security for Costs (pre Trial)
Outcome
Defendants' broad discovery applications refused as oppressive; limited discovery obligations imposed and supplemented; security for costs ordered in favour of defendants.
Legal Topics
Conversion, Fair Trading Act, Breach of Duty of Loyalty/fidelity, Conspiracy, Discovery, Security for Costs, Non Party Discovery
Commercial Law Contract Law Employment Law Civil Procedure Equity Competition/trade Practices Conversion Fair Trading Act +5 more

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

DIMAR TOOLS (AUSTRALIA) PTY LIMITED

Plaintiff

JUDITH ANNE SKELLEY

First Defendant

MAX CHARLES SKELLEY

Second Defendant

CAROLYN SKELLEY

Third Defendant

J-MAX ENGINEERING & IRRIGATION LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Dispute (conversion; Fair Trading Act; Breach of Duties; Conspiracy) / Interlocutory Applications for Particular Discovery and Security for Costs (pre Trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants' requests for extensive invoices and financial documents (2000–2005) ought to be ordered
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff must produce documentation relating to transfers from its New Zealand account
  3. 3 Whether security for costs should be ordered against a foreign plaintiff with no NZ presence or assets

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the defendants' broad requests for invoices from 2000–2005 as fishing and unduly oppressive, but ordered limited discovery already provided (2005 annual accounts and bank statements) and allowed further targeted disclosure only if identified as relevant by engaged accountants; the Court exercised its discretion to order security for costs of $25,000 to be paid into the plaintiff's solicitor's trust account within one month because the plaintiff had no presence or asset base in New Zealand and enforcement in Australia would add expense and delay.

Court Disposition

Defendants' broad discovery applications refused as oppressive; limited discovery obligations imposed and supplemented; security for costs ordered in favour of defendants.

Orders

  • Security for costs fixed at $25,000 to be paid into the plaintiff's solicitor's trust account on interest bearing deposit within one month of judgment
  • Plaintiff's 2005 annual accounts to be and have been provided to defendants