GIRVAN AND ANOR V NICHOLS AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-002515

GIRVAN AND ANOR V NICHOLS AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-002515

The Court held the defendants' objections were insufficient and ordered further, non-evasive answers to specified interrogatories under r 8.6 because the questions were relevant to the central issue of who acted as developer/builder; answers must be verified, state inquiries made, and address each component of compound questions; failure to provide adequate answers requires Court-ordered supplementation by specified deadline.

Citation
openlaw-3aafc9ab_3b03_47b2_9ed3_13eb8601da2f.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: John Christopher Girvan; Plaintiff: Kathleen Patricia Girvan; First Defendant: Andrew William Nichols; First Defendant: Natalie Rhonda Nichols; Second Defendant: Ronald William Nichols; Third Defendant: North Shore City Council; Fourth Defendant: Ashley Jordan; First Third Party: Graeme Bamber
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 October 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Negligence (building Defects) / Interlocutory Application for Answers to Interrogatories
Outcome
Interlocutory orders granted in part: defendants ordered to provide further answers to specified interrogatories; first defendant's recorded name amended; costs reserved
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Discovery, Relevance, Non Delegable Duty of Care, Builder/developer Liability
Civil Procedure Tort Construction Law Property Law Evidence Interrogatories Discovery Relevance +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Christopher Girvan

Plaintiff

Kathleen Patricia Girvan

Plaintiff

Andrew William Nichols

First Defendant

Natalie Rhonda Nichols

First Defendant

Ronald William Nichols

Second Defendant

North Shore City Council

Third Defendant

Ashley Jordan

Fourth Defendant

Graeme Bamber

First Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Negligence (building Defects) / Interlocutory Application for Answers to Interrogatories

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specific interrogatories related to matters in question and were therefore relevant under r 8.7(1)(a)
  2. 2 Whether defendants' objections under High Court Rules r 8.7 were sufficient
  3. 3 Whether answers provided were sufficient under r 8.6 and the extent of inquiry required to provide answers

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held the defendants' objections were insufficient and ordered further, non-evasive answers to specified interrogatories under r 8.6 because the questions were relevant to the central issue of who acted as developer/builder; answers must be verified, state inquiries made, and address each component of compound questions; failure to provide adequate answers requires Court-ordered supplementation by specified deadline.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders granted in part: defendants ordered to provide further answers to specified interrogatories; first defendant's recorded name amended; costs reserved

Orders

  • The first-named first defendant's name is amended to Andrew William Nichols
  • The first-named first defendant shall file and serve by 10 November 2009 answers in accordance with the High Court Rules to interrogatories numbered 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 22, 31.1, 31.2, 31.3, 31.4, 32, 33, 34 and 35 contained in the plaintiffs' notice of 7 March 2009