Body Corporate 325261 v McDonough [2015] NZHC 1049

Body Corporate 325261 v McDonough [2015] NZHC 1049

The application to compel answers was dismissed because the plaintiffs' memorandum and pleadings, on their face, provided sufficient responses and the defendants did not establish the necessity required by r 8.38; absent the briefs of evidence or other material demonstrating a gap, the court would not order further answers and reserved costs per the earlier judgment.

Citation
[2015] NZHC 1049
Parties
First Plaintiff: Body Corporate 325261; Second Plaintiff: Rodney William Cooke; Second Plaintiff: Amanda Jane Pendry; First Defendant: James McDonough; Second Defendant: Maunga Rei NZ Limited; Third Defendant: Auckland Council; Sixth Defendant: Stephen Mitchell Engineers Limited; Seventh Defendant: Stephen Robert Mitchell
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil High Court (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Application Concerning Compulsory Answers to Interrogatories (on the Papers)
Outcome
Application to compel answers to the remaining interrogatories dismissed; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Necessity Test Under Court Rules, Leave to Demand Answers, Costs Reservation
Civil Procedure Evidence Costs Property/body Corporate Interrogatories Discovery Necessity Test Under Court Rules Leave to Demand Answers +1 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 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 325261

First Plaintiff

Rodney William Cooke

Second Plaintiff

Amanda Jane Pendry

Second Plaintiff

James McDonough

First Defendant

Maunga Rei NZ Limited

Second Defendant

Auckland Council

Third Defendant

Stephen Mitchell Engineers Limited

Sixth Defendant

Stephen Robert Mitchell

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil High Court (interlocutory Application) / Interlocutory Application Concerning Compulsory Answers to Interrogatories (on the Papers)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to answer specified interrogatories after briefs of evidence were filed
  2. 2 Whether the requirement of necessity under r 8.38 of the High Court Rules is satisfied
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs' memorandum and pleadings suffice in place of direct answers to interrogatories

Ratio Decidendi

The application to compel answers was dismissed because the plaintiffs' memorandum and pleadings, on their face, provided sufficient responses and the defendants did not establish the necessity required by r 8.38; absent the briefs of evidence or other material demonstrating a gap, the court would not order further answers and reserved costs per the earlier judgment.

Court Disposition

Application to compel answers to the remaining interrogatories dismissed; costs reserved

Orders

  • No order to compel plaintiffs to answer the remaining interrogatories sought by the sixth and seventh defendants
  • Costs reserved on the same basis as set out in paragraph 98 of the judgment dated 20 April 2015