TOHENGAROA AND GEOFFREY JOHN HOGAN V MERILYN RUTH CONNOLLY AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-000968

TOHENGAROA AND GEOFFREY JOHN HOGAN V MERILYN RUTH CONNOLLY AND ORS HC HAM CIV 2006-419-000968

Documents concerning training and supervision of the first defendant were not relevant to the pleaded claims against the second defendants (which focus on administration of the trusts and vicarious liability), and ordering their production as potential similar fact evidence would be oppressive; the Associate Judge's determination refusing production of those documents was correct and the review is dismissed.

Citation
openlaw-38fa07ab_1d18_45e0_b868_c07cd0424a78.pdf
Parties
Plaintiffs: WALLY HAUAURU TOHENGAROA AND GEOFFREY JOHN HOGAN; First Defendant: MERILYN RUTH CONNOLLY; Second Defendants: D WALLACE BAIN AND SAMUEL A LAUBSCHER PRACTISING IN THE PARTNERSHIP OF LAMB BAIN LAUBSCHER; Third Defendant: KIDD FALCONER & CO LIMITED; Fourth Defendant: MURRAY JAMES ARNDT; Fifth Defendant: WHENUA KETE LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (appeal by Way of Rehearing) / Judgment on Review by Rehearing
Outcome
Review dismissed; Associate Judge Faire's orders upheld
Legal Topics
Production of Documents, Discovery Rules (r300 R302 R307), Vicarious Liability, Supervision of Employees, Similar Fact Evidence, Costs
Civil Procedure Trusts Law Professional Negligence Evidence Law Discovery Law Production of Documents Discovery Rules (r300 R302 R307) Vicarious Liability +3 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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

WALLY HAUAURU TOHENGAROA AND GEOFFREY JOHN HOGAN

Plaintiffs

MERILYN RUTH CONNOLLY

First Defendant

D WALLACE BAIN AND SAMUEL A LAUBSCHER PRACTISING IN THE PARTNERSHIP OF LAMB BAIN LAUBSCHER

Second Defendants

KIDD FALCONER & CO LIMITED

Third Defendant

MURRAY JAMES ARNDT

Fourth Defendant

WHENUA KETE LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (appeal by Way of Rehearing) / Judgment on Review by Rehearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether documents concerning training and supervision of the first defendant are relevant to the pleaded causes of action against the second defendants
  2. 2 Whether supervision evidence is relevant to vicarious liability or to direct negligence/equitable duty claims against the employer
  3. 3 Whether ordering discovery of documents reflecting other client matters would be oppressive as similar fact evidence

Ratio Decidendi

Documents concerning training and supervision of the first defendant were not relevant to the pleaded claims against the second defendants (which focus on administration of the trusts and vicarious liability), and ordering their production as potential similar fact evidence would be oppressive; the Associate Judge's determination refusing production of those documents was correct and the review is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Review dismissed; Associate Judge Faire's orders upheld

Orders

  • Review dismissed
  • Associate Judge Faire's production orders to stand (documents previously ordered produced remain subject to those orders)