New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Admissibility of documents

Legal area

Court

16 Aug 2021

PICKERING v DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZCA 382

Citation

[2021] NZCA 382
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed; the Court upheld the High Court's award of equitable/contractual compensation as reasonable mitigation costs for the non-delivery of the prototype (total $240,075.59 NZD comprising componentry $117,350.59 NZD and labour $122,725 NZD after deducting $200,415.45 NZD payable to Pickering), finding invoices admissible, betterment not proved, and the labour-hour estimate and rate a reasonable pragmatic assessment given the evidence.
14 Nov 2016

STEEL v SPENCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2723

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2723
Court

High Court

The judge ruled that the identified documents were inadmissible as hearsay or expert opinion in the absence of witness testimony and ordered their deletion from the agreed bundle, while reserving the right to revisit admissibility when Ms Steel or other relevant witnesses give evidence.
31 Aug 2016

WIIG v DAKEN [2016] NZHC 2044

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2044
Court

High Court

Court found breaches of cl 9.1(c) and (d) in respect of identifiable overdue trade invoices ($57,006.44) and GST ($14,776.29); the Aged Payables schedule was admissible though its weight was reduced where unsupported; when those liabilities are added the overdraft would have exceeded the disclosed $240,000 limit by $4,782.29, and that shortfall constituted the recoverable loss, resulting in judgment for the first defendant for $4,782.29; other claimed items (ACC, vendor payments, other unpleaded sums) were disallowed for lack of pleading or evidence.
25 Aug 2016

FUGLE v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 1997

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1997
Court

High Court

Crediting the appellant's current account in 2005 was a retrospective accounting recognition and did not constitute a payment because no sum was placed unreservedly at the appellant's disposal and there was no company action (or shareholder assent) effecting a payment; accordingly the financial arrangement had not matured in 2005 and no base price adjustment was triggered; the Authority erred in excluding the accountant's historical accounting records which supported that position.
22 Jul 2015

DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109

Citation

[2015] NZSC 109
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application is dismissed because the grounds were misconceived and did not demonstrate miscarriage of justice: the Supreme Court was aware the Peden schedule was not a proved exhibit and its base figures were otherwise in evidence; the alleged procedural defects were either not established or not outcome‑determinative; the alleged departure from particulars was unfounded; issues of double counting did not undermine the overall evidential picture; and the applicants failed to raise these matters at the appropriate earlier stages making the recall an unjustified second shot.
2 Oct 2013

G-STAR RAW C.V. v JEANSWEST CORPORATION (NEW ZEALAND) LTD [2013] NZHC 2568

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2568
Court

High Court

The spreadsheet may be used only for the limited purpose of asking the witness whether he has seen it or a similar document and about his general familiarity with the preparation process; it is not admitted as an exhibit because no witness can fully explain its compilation, it was not discovered, a confidentiality order restricts disclosure, and its probative value for budgeting prior to design is doubtful; a sealed copy will be retained by the Registrar for appellate purposes and the plaintiffs' copy returned to defendant after evidence.
10 Sept 2009

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V GENESIS POWER LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2001-404-001974

Citation

openlaw-f1415b6c_b527_4b1f_8a62_cc17cbc03106.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to grant leave to admit the late-produced invoices because admitting them was in the interests of justice and defendants could not demonstrate irremediable prejudice; admission was conditional on defendant costs and other accommodations, but the hearsay evidence of Mr Taylor referencing those invoices was excluded.

New Zealand Case Law

PICKERING v DETECTION SERVICES LIMITED [2021] NZCA 382

STEEL v SPENCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2723

WIIG v DAKEN [2016] NZHC 2044

FUGLE v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2016] NZHC 1997

DOUGLAS ARTHUR MONTROSE GRAHAM, MICHAEL HOWARD REEVES, WILLIAM PATRICK JEFFRIES AND LAWRENCE ROLAND VALPY BRYANT v R [2015] NZSC 109

G-STAR RAW C.V. v JEANSWEST CORPORATION (NEW ZEALAND) LTD [2013] NZHC 2568

CARTER HOLT HARVEY LIMITED V GENESIS POWER LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2001-404-001974