BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 658 [1 April 2022]

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 658 [1 April 2022]

QLDC conducted reasonable searches and demonstrated that the internal notes, memoranda or external reports about remedial works the plaintiffs alleged do not exist or have been produced or are publicly available; the 2015 tailored discovery order did not, on its terms, require QLDC to produce forward‑looking remedial documents and r8.19 was not engaged because there were no grounds to believe relevant undisclosed documents existed; accordingly no further discovery ordered.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 658
Parties
First Plaintiff: Body Corporate 355492; Second Plaintiffs: John Robert Chestney & Ors; First Defendant: Queenstown Lakes District Council; Second Defendant: Elliott Architect Limited (In Liquidation); Third Defendant: Edwin Gerard Elliott; Fourth Defendant: Holmes Structures Limited (In Liquidation); Fifth Defendant / Fifth Third Party: Arch Underwriting Limited at Lloyd's Limited; Sixth Defendant / Sixth Third Party: Asta Managing Agency Limited; Seventh Defendant / Seventh Third Party: Hardy (Underwriting Agencies) Limited; Eighth Defendant / Eighth Third Party: Liberty Managing Agency Limited; First Third Party: Stephen Bruce McLean; Second Third Party: Julie Raewyn Wensley Jack; Third Third Party: Peter Lawson; Fourth Third Party: Daniel Stewart; Ninth Third Party: De Geest Construction Limited; Tenth Third Party: De Geest Bathrooms Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 April 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Building/negligence Proceedings Concerning Weathertightness and Code Compliance / Plaintiffs' Application for Orders for Discovery (procedural Hearing)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' application for further and better discovery dismissed
Legal Topics
Tailored Discovery, Continuing Discovery Obligations R8.18, Order for Particular Discovery R8.19, Building Consents, Code Compliance Certificates, Relevance and Proportionality of Discovery
Civil Procedure Building Law Tort Negligence Administrative Law Evidence and Discovery Tailored Discovery Continuing Discovery Obligations R8.18 Order for Particular Discovery R8.19 +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Body Corporate 355492

First Plaintiff

John Robert Chestney & Ors

Second Plaintiffs

Queenstown Lakes District Council

First Defendant

Elliott Architect Limited (In Liquidation)

Second Defendant

Edwin Gerard Elliott

Third Defendant

Holmes Structures Limited (In Liquidation)

Fourth Defendant

Arch Underwriting Limited at Lloyd's Limited

Fifth Defendant / Fifth Third Party

Asta Managing Agency Limited

Sixth Defendant / Sixth Third Party

Hardy (Underwriting Agencies) Limited

Seventh Defendant / Seventh Third Party

Liberty Managing Agency Limited

Eighth Defendant / Eighth Third Party

Stephen Bruce McLean

First Third Party

Julie Raewyn Wensley Jack

Second Third Party

Peter Lawson

Third Third Party

Daniel Stewart

Fourth Third Party

De Geest Construction Limited

Ninth Third Party

De Geest Bathrooms Limited

Tenth Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil Building/negligence Proceedings Concerning Weathertightness and Code Compliance / Plaintiffs' Application for Orders for Discovery (procedural Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2015 tailored discovery order and/or r8.18 imposed an obligation on QLDC to discover documents relating to remedial works
  2. 2 Whether there are grounds under r8.19 to order further discovery from QLDC
  3. 3 Whether documents the plaintiffs seek (internal notes, memoranda, reports) exist and are relevant to issues in dispute

Ratio Decidendi

QLDC conducted reasonable searches and demonstrated that the internal notes, memoranda or external reports about remedial works the plaintiffs alleged do not exist or have been produced or are publicly available; the 2015 tailored discovery order did not, on its terms, require QLDC to produce forward‑looking remedial documents and r8.19 was not engaged because there were no grounds to believe relevant undisclosed documents existed; accordingly no further discovery ordered.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' application for further and better discovery dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed.
  • Costs and disbursements to QLDC on a 2B basis; if no submission on costs (not more than five pages) is filed within five working days of judgment, that will be the order as to costs.