MT HOWLAND V THE SALVATION ARMY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1538

MT HOWLAND V THE SALVATION ARMY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1538

The discovery sought is directly relevant to the determination of leave under the Limitation Act (disability and reasonable discoverability); accordingly specific discovery is necessary and the defendants' application for discovery is granted with a timetable for verified lists and production by 27 March 2009.

Citation
openlaw-ae45810e_7cae_4b62_a825_cb0c5dabc276.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Michael Thomas Howland; Plaintiff: Lee Robert Blundell; Plaintiff: Robert Lebrazier (Michael Terrence Horrell, Michael Terrence Lebrazier); First Defendant: Attorney-General; Second Defendant: The Salvation Army
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Leave to Bring Proceedings Under Limitation Act 1950 / Telephone Directions Conference; Interlocutory Discovery and Case Management Orders
Outcome
Specific discovery orders granted; case management timetable imposed; proceedings grouped for case management.
Legal Topics
Specific Discovery, Leave to Bring Proceedings, Disability/unsoundness of Mind, Reasonable Discoverability, Case Management Orders
Limitation Act 1950 Civil Procedure Evidence and Discovery Specific Discovery Leave to Bring Proceedings Disability/unsoundness of Mind Reasonable Discoverability Case Management Orders

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Thomas Howland

Plaintiff

Lee Robert Blundell

Plaintiff

Robert Lebrazier (Michael Terrence Horrell, Michael Terrence Lebrazier)

Plaintiff

Attorney-General

First Defendant

The Salvation Army

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Leave to Bring Proceedings Under Limitation Act 1950 / Telephone Directions Conference; Interlocutory Discovery and Case Management Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants are entitled to specific discovery of plaintiffs' conviction, Corrections, medical, psychological, probation and ACC files as relevant to leave applications under the Limitation Act 1950
  2. 2 Whether the discovery requested is onerous or disproportionate at the leave stage
  3. 3 Whether plaintiffs have produced sufficient evidence to establish an arguable case for extension or postponement (disability and reasonable discoverability)

Ratio Decidendi

The discovery sought is directly relevant to the determination of leave under the Limitation Act (disability and reasonable discoverability); accordingly specific discovery is necessary and the defendants' application for discovery is granted with a timetable for verified lists and production by 27 March 2009.

Court Disposition

Specific discovery orders granted; case management timetable imposed; proceedings grouped for case management.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs Howland, Blundell and Lebrazier to complete discovery by filing and serving by affidavit a verified list of documents and making documents available for inspection in terms of High Court Rules 297, 298 & 300 by 27 March 2009
  • Proceedings CIV 2008-485-1538, 1541 and 1695 are grouped together for case management purposes