HENDERSON AND ANOR V REDDIFORD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-001426

HENDERSON AND ANOR V REDDIFORD AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2009-409-001426

The Court refused to resolve the claim of litigation privilege at this interlocutory stage because complainants can be called as witnesses and the adversarial nature of the proposed disciplinary proceedings had not been established; the Court held that s69 Evidence Act 2006 did not justify directing that the first defendant be prevented from inspecting disclosed complaints and declined to restrict normal discovery access under s69.

Citation
openlaw-3ee3f797_07a9_43cb_a888_864b7c91da4e.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Jeremy Nigel Henderson; Second Plaintiff: Carolyn Jane Tapley; First Defendant: Jonathon William Heywood Reddiford; Second Defendant: Institute of Financial Advisers Inc; Third Defendant: David Hutton
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
4 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil: Defamation, Injunction, Professional Disciplinary Proceedings / Interim Applications Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Injunction (discovery Disputes)
Outcome
Claim for litigation privilege not resolved at this stage; application for directions under s69 refusing; interim s69 direction refused; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Litigation Privilege, Confidential Information S69 Evidence Act 2006, Interim Injunction, Summary Judgment, Disciplinary Proceedings, Honest Opinion Defence
Evidence Civil Procedure Defamation Confidentiality Professional Disciplinary Law Legal Professional Privilege Litigation Privilege Confidential Information S69 Evidence Act 2006 +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeremy Nigel Henderson

First Plaintiff

Carolyn Jane Tapley

Second Plaintiff

Jonathon William Heywood Reddiford

First Defendant

Institute of Financial Advisers Inc

Second Defendant

David Hutton

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil: Defamation, Injunction, Professional Disciplinary Proceedings / Interim Applications Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Injunction (discovery Disputes)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether litigation privilege attaches to communications between solicitors and witnesses in IFA disciplinary proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the Court should exercise s69 Evidence Act 2006 to prevent a defendant from accessing confidential complaints to preserve the integrity of the defendant's evidence
  3. 3 Whether it is appropriate at this stage to resolve privilege claims prior to full hearing and discovery

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused to resolve the claim of litigation privilege at this interlocutory stage because complainants can be called as witnesses and the adversarial nature of the proposed disciplinary proceedings had not been established; the Court held that s69 Evidence Act 2006 did not justify directing that the first defendant be prevented from inspecting disclosed complaints and declined to restrict normal discovery access under s69.

Court Disposition

Claim for litigation privilege not resolved at this stage; application for directions under s69 refusing; interim s69 direction refused; costs reserved.

Orders

  • Do not resolve claim for litigation privilege at this stage; plaintiffs may call complainants as witnesses.
  • Refuse to make directions pursuant to s69 Evidence Act 2006 preventing the first defendant from seeing the complaints.