AAM LIMITED v EXOTICA ENTERPRISE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3031

AAM LIMITED v EXOTICA ENTERPRISE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 3031

The court found defendants had not complied with the earlier discovery order because of identifiable gaps and discrepancies between disclosed annual financial statements and underlying source documents; further discovery was proportionate and necessary to establish accurate trading figures and quantify claims, so...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 3031
Parties
First Plaintiff: AAM Limited; Second Plaintiff: Mumtaj Yunus Agarbattiwala; First Defendant: Exotica Enterprise Limited; Second Defendant: Darius Karani; Third Defendant: Manuka Masters Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
22 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Application for Further Discovery (civil) / Interlocutory Discovery
Outcome
further discovery ordered; costs awarded to plaintiffs; leave reserved for further directions
Legal Topics
Discovery, Turnover Warranty, Breach of Contract, Misrepresentation, Restraint of Trade, Fair Trading Act S9
Contract Law Commercial Law Civil Procedure Statutory Consumer Law Discovery Turnover Warranty Breach of Contract Misrepresentation +2 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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 14
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AAM Limited

First Plaintiff

Mumtaj Yunus Agarbattiwala

Second Plaintiff

Exotica Enterprise Limited

First Defendant

Darius Karani

Second Defendant

Manuka Masters Limited

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application for Further Discovery (civil) / Interlocutory Discovery

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether defendants complied with an earlier discovery order
  2. 2 whether further discovery should be ordered under High Court Rules r 8.19 and/or variation under r 8.17
  3. 3 whether requested additional categories of financial/source documents are relevant and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The court found defendants had not complied with the earlier discovery order because of identifiable gaps and discrepancies between disclosed annual financial statements and underlying source documents; further discovery was proportionate and necessary to establish accurate trading figures and quantify claims, so Exotica Enterprise Ltd was ordered to disclose all invoices and banking/transaction records from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2018 (except the court declined to require earlier 2013 year documents), Manuka Masters Ltd to disclose banking/transaction records for 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2018, and a registrar conference was ordered to review compliance; no finding of perjury was made.

Court Disposition

further discovery ordered; costs awarded to plaintiffs; leave reserved for further directions

Orders

  • By 25 January 2019 Exotica Enterprise Ltd to file and serve a further affidavit of documents disclosing all invoices not disclosed to date from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2018 and to disclose bank statements, credit card statements, Bartercard and BBX records from 1 April 2013 to 31 March 2018.
  • Within 20 working days of decision Manuka Masters Ltd to file and serve a further affidavit of documents disclosing bank statements, credit card statements, Bartercard and BBX records from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2018.