KAPITI HIGH VOLTAGE COALITION INCORPORATED & ORS V KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL & ANOR HC WN CIV-2008-485-2723

KAPITI HIGH VOLTAGE COALITION INCORPORATED & ORS V KAPITI COAST DISTRICT COUNCIL & ANOR HC WN CIV-2008-485-2723

The Court found the plaintiffs met the r 8.24 threshold for discovery but exercised its discretion to limit discovery: Transpower must discover relevant documents relating to the subsequent applications that were created before (pre-dating) each application, but the plaintiffs' claim for discovery of documents...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-b15edd2a_179b_46d7_b27a_72ee42b07a0a.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Kapiti High Voltage Coalition Incorporated; Second Plaintiff: Michael Philip Alexander; Second Plaintiff: Brandon Robert Hindry; Second Plaintiff: Juergen Gerhard Jenkner; First Defendant: Kapiti Coast District Council; Second Defendant: Transpower New Zealand Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
20 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review; Trespass; Resource Management Act Challenges / Interlocutory Discovery Application (judgment on Discovery)
Outcome
Application partly granted and partly dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Judicial Review, Trespass, Existing Use Rights, Resource Consent, Certificate of Compliance, Oppression and Fishing Expeditions
Administrative Law Property Law Resource Management Law Civil Procedure Electricity Regulation Discovery Judicial Review Trespass +4 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kapiti High Voltage Coalition Incorporated

First Plaintiff

Michael Philip Alexander

Second Plaintiff

Brandon Robert Hindry

Second Plaintiff

Juergen Gerhard Jenkner

Second Plaintiff

Kapiti Coast District Council

First Defendant

Transpower New Zealand Limited

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review; Trespass; Resource Management Act Challenges / Interlocutory Discovery Application (judgment on Discovery)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs satisfied threshold for discovery under High Court Rules r 8.24
  2. 2 Scope and temporal limits of discoverable documents relating to subsequent RMA applications
  3. 3 Relevance of documents created after grant of applications to prove pre-application knowledge or misrepresentation

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found the plaintiffs met the r 8.24 threshold for discovery but exercised its discretion to limit discovery: Transpower must discover relevant documents relating to the subsequent applications that were created before (pre-dating) each application, but the plaintiffs' claim for discovery of documents created after each application was refused as oppressive and a likely fishing expedition; discovery regarding pole cracking was refused where the evidence post-dated installation because such subsequent cracking evidence is not probative of Transpower's knowledge at the time of the applications.

Court Disposition

Application partly granted and partly dismissed

Orders

  • Transpower to discover and produce all relevant documents relating to the subsequent RMA applications that were created for and pre-dated each application (temporal cut-off: documents created before the grant of the related application)
  • Discovery of documents created after the grant of each subsequent application refused as oppressive and amounting to a fishing expedition