WAITAKERE GROUP LTD v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LTD [2021] NZHC 1052

WAITAKERE GROUP LTD v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LTD [2021] NZHC 1052

The court held that interrogatories asking categorical yes/no questions about whether specific testing of Harditex and Monotek occurred were relevant and necessary and not unduly burdensome, but excluded and refused to order answers to interrogatories that were open-ended, ambiguous or amounted to de-facto discovery (notably requests for documentary listings or for 'who conducted' tests and 'results' which may require expert interpretation). Leave to amend interrogatory 188 (clerical date error) was granted; amendment/answering of interrogatory 247 was adjourned and timetabled. Specific interrogatory numbers were ordered answered and limited to exclude 'who conducted the testing and the...

Citation
[2021] NZHC 1052
Parties
First Plaintiff: Waitakere Group Limited; Second Plaintiff: Metlifecare Pinesong Limited; Third Plaintiff: Forest Lake Gardens Limited; Fourth Plaintiff: Vision (Dannemora) Limited; Fifth Plaintiff: Metlifecare Coastal Villas Limited; First Defendant: James Hardie New Zealand Limited; Second Defendant: Studorp Limited; Third Defendant: James Hardie NZ Holdings Limited; Fourth Defendant: RCI Holdings Pty Limited; Fifth Defendant: James Hardie Australia Pty Limited; Sixth Defendant: James Hardie Research Pty Limited; Seventh Defendant: James Hardie Industries PLC
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Tort / Product Liability / Interlocutory Discovery Application
Outcome
Partly allowed. Most testing-related interrogatories ordered answered with limits; certain interrogatories excluded or adjourned; leave to amend 188 granted; amendment/answer to 247 adjourned with timetable.
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Evidence Disclosure, Testing of Building Materials, Duty to Warn, Weathertightness, Building Code Compliance
Tort Product Liability Negligence Discovery Consumer Law Building Regulation Interrogatories Evidence Disclosure +4 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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waitakere Group Limited

First Plaintiff

Metlifecare Pinesong Limited

Second Plaintiff

Forest Lake Gardens Limited

Third Plaintiff

Vision (Dannemora) Limited

Fourth Plaintiff

Metlifecare Coastal Villas Limited

Fifth Plaintiff

James Hardie New Zealand Limited

First Defendant

Studorp Limited

Second Defendant

James Hardie NZ Holdings Limited

Third Defendant

RCI Holdings Pty Limited

Fourth Defendant

James Hardie Australia Pty Limited

Fifth Defendant

James Hardie Research Pty Limited

Sixth Defendant

James Hardie Industries PLC

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Tort / Product Liability / Interlocutory Discovery Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether interrogatories seeking information on testing of Harditex and Monotek are necessary
  2. 2 whether interrogatories are oppressive or insufficiently precise
  3. 3 whether amendments to interrogatories (188 and 247) should be permitted

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that interrogatories asking categorical yes/no questions about whether specific testing of Harditex and Monotek occurred were relevant and necessary and not unduly burdensome, but excluded and refused to order answers to interrogatories that were open-ended, ambiguous or amounted to de-facto discovery (notably requests for documentary listings or for 'who conducted' tests and 'results' which may require expert interpretation). Leave to amend interrogatory 188 (clerical date error) was granted; amendment/answering of interrogatory 247 was adjourned and timetabled. Specific interrogatory numbers were ordered answered and limited to exclude 'who conducted the testing and the...

Court Disposition

Partly allowed. Most testing-related interrogatories ordered answered with limits; certain interrogatories excluded or adjourned; leave to amend 188 granted; amendment/answer to 247 adjourned with timetable.

Orders

  • Defendant James Hardie New Zealand Limited must answer Harditex interrogatories numbered 145-150, 152-155, 157-162, 164 and 168
  • Defendant James Hardie New Zealand Limited must answer Monotek interrogatories numbered 188-193, 195-198 and 200-205