REEDER & Anor V REEDER & ORS HC TAU CIV-2012-470-599

REEDER & Anor V REEDER & ORS HC TAU CIV-2012-470-599

Application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish specific grounds for believing the requested documents existed or would be relevant and proportionate; bank statements were unavailable due to retention limits and credit card statements and wholesale company records were not shown to be probative or necessary.

Citation
openlaw-9c1fe21b_a9c2_4489_941c_6239cb52fe13.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Nellie Reeder; Second Plaintiff: Wendy Lee Gunman in her capacity as executor of the estate of William John Reeder; First Defendant: Jeffrey Grant Reeder; Second Defendant: Reeder Holdings Limited; Third Defendant: Leyton Properties Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery in Civil Proceedings Including S174 Companies Act Claims / Application for Particular Discovery Under R 8.19 High Court Rules (interlocutory)
Outcome
Application for particular discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Discovery, Oppression (s174 Companies Act 1993), Breach of Trust, Undue Influence, Derivative Action
Civil Procedure Companies Law Equity/trusts Discovery Oppression (s174 Companies Act 1993) Breach of Trust Undue Influence Derivative Action

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nellie Reeder

First Plaintiff

Wendy Lee Gunman in her capacity as executor of the estate of William John Reeder

Second Plaintiff

Jeffrey Grant Reeder

First Defendant

Reeder Holdings Limited

Second Defendant

Leyton Properties Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application for Particular Discovery in Civil Proceedings Including S174 Companies Act Claims / Application for Particular Discovery Under R 8.19 High Court Rules (interlocutory)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiffs established grounds under r 8.19 HCR that respondents failed to discover documents they should have
  2. 2 Appropriate scope of discovery under the High Court Rules (standard discovery v Peruvian Guano)
  3. 3 Relevance and proportionality of requested company and personal financial records including bank statements, cashbooks and credit card statements

Ratio Decidendi

Application dismissed because plaintiffs failed to establish specific grounds for believing the requested documents existed or would be relevant and proportionate; bank statements were unavailable due to retention limits and credit card statements and wholesale company records were not shown to be probative or necessary.

Court Disposition

Application for particular discovery dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • Parties to confer on costs and if unable to agree file memoranda not exceeding five pages within 21 days of judgment