RITCHIE V DEW DROP PAPAMOA LTD & ANOR AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001563

RITCHIE V DEW DROP PAPAMOA LTD & ANOR AND ANOR HC HAM CIV 2006-419-001563

The application was dismissed because the intending plaintiff could formulate the claim without the documents sought: the claim against Mr Old was sufficiently particularised and any additional documents would be obtainable through normal discovery after proceedings commence, so the r301 threshold of impossibility...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-f7dfaccd_edfd_45c7_9043_cd0d6c7d57d1.pdf
Parties
Intended Plaintiff: Angus Bremner Ritchie; First Intended Defendant: Dew Drop Papamoa Ltd; Second Intended Defendant: Bryan Old
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
28 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Application Under High Court Rules R301 (pre Action Discovery) / Pre Commencement (interlocutory Application)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Pre Action Discovery, Rule 301 High Court Rules, Pleading, Quantification of Loss, Costs
Civil Procedure Discovery Contract Company Law Pre Action Discovery Rule 301 High Court Rules Pleading Quantification of Loss +1 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Angus Bremner Ritchie

Intended Plaintiff

Dew Drop Papamoa Ltd

First Intended Defendant

Bryan Old

Second Intended Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application Under High Court Rules R301 (pre Action Discovery) / Pre Commencement (interlocutory Application)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it is impossible or impracticable for the intending plaintiff to formulate his claim without the documents sought under r301
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are necessary at this time or obtainable by normal discovery after proceedings commence
  3. 3 Whether there is a viable claim against the first intended defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The application was dismissed because the intending plaintiff could formulate the claim without the documents sought: the claim against Mr Old was sufficiently particularised and any additional documents would be obtainable through normal discovery after proceedings commence, so the r301 threshold of impossibility or impracticability and the necessity requirement of r301(4) were not met.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for order under r301 dismissed
  • Intended defendants awarded costs on a Category 2 Band B basis