BODY CORPORATE NO. 173457 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-003964

BODY CORPORATE NO. 173457 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-003964

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse the council's application because the interrogatories were served and pressed at an impractical and prejudicial time (immediately prior to mediation and imminent trial), were oppressive, vexatious and prolix, imposed a burden disproportionate to any likely benefit, some matters were already covered in witness statements or required third‑party enquiry or trial evidence, and therefore the interrogatories were not necessary at the time sought.

Citation
openlaw-a43dc24f_1275_4ac1_90d5_3301cb6123b8.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Body Corporate No. 173457; Second Plaintiff: Judy Green & Ors; First Defendant: North Shore City Council; Second Defendant: Phillip Jones
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
16 July 2009
Procedural Posture
Leaky Building Claim / Building Defects / Negligence (multi‑party) / Pre‑trial; Application to Compel Interrogatory Answers Heard and Dismissed; Five‑week Trial Scheduled to Commence 10 August 2009; Mediation 23 July 2009
Outcome
Application to compel answers to interrogatories dismissed
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Limitation, Contributory Negligence, Mitigation, Duty of Care, Mediation, Prolixity and Oppression of Discovery, Timing of Disclosure
Civil Procedure Construction Law Tort Professional Negligence Evidence Discovery and Disclosure Interrogatories Limitation +6 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate No. 173457

First Plaintiff

Judy Green & Ors

Second Plaintiff

North Shore City Council

First Defendant

Phillip Jones

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leaky Building Claim / Building Defects / Negligence (multi‑party) / Pre‑trial; Application to Compel Interrogatory Answers Heard and Dismissed; Five‑week Trial Scheduled to Commence 10 August 2009; Mediation 23 July 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Court should order 27 second plaintiffs to answer extensive interrogatories served late in proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the interrogatories were necessary at the time they were sought
  3. 3 Whether the interrogatories were oppressive, vexatious or prolix and placed a disproportionate burden on plaintiffs

Ratio Decidendi

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse the council's application because the interrogatories were served and pressed at an impractical and prejudicial time (immediately prior to mediation and imminent trial), were oppressive, vexatious and prolix, imposed a burden disproportionate to any likely benefit, some matters were already covered in witness statements or required third‑party enquiry or trial evidence, and therefore the interrogatories were not necessary at the time sought.

Court Disposition

Application to compel answers to interrogatories dismissed

Orders

  • Application to compel answers to interrogatories dismissed
  • Costs reserved