New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Disclosure and privilege

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2021

WRIGHT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2695

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2695
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because applicant failed to identify the personal knowledge or admissible evidence the Solicitor-General or Attorney-General could give, failed to show reasonable attempts to obtain briefs or exceptional circumstances, and the evidence sought was unnecessary or likely privileged; the request constituted a late fishing expedition irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action and not necessary for a fair trial.
21 Jul 2017

MARTIN LYTTELTON v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1708

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1708
Court

High Court

The unsuccessful applicant is liable for costs; there was no basis to depart from the ordinary rule; the matter was appropriately categorised as 2B and an allowance for discovery was warranted, resulting in an award of $28,059 costs plus $160 disbursements, split evenly between the respondents.
31 Oct 2014

FAWCETT v THE CROWN SOLICITOR OF HAMILTON & ANOR [2014] NZHC 2713

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2713
Court

High Court

The judicial review application was struck out because there was no decision by Judge Spear refusing disclosure to be reviewed, the statement of claim disclosed no tenable cause of action against the defendants, and the forensic examination and disclosure relief sought were not available by judicial review; disclosure, if appropriate, should be sought under the Criminal Disclosure Act in the criminal proceedings.
18 Mar 2013

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE & ORS V CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED & ORS COA CA556/2012

Citation

COA CA556/2012
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held as a matter of law that (1) the acts and knowledge of departmental delegates under s 7 TAA cannot be attributed to the Commissioner so claims against the Commissioner based on attribution must be struck out; (2) a private solicitor engaged by the department in a solicitor/client role does not occupy 'public office' for purposes of misfeasance in public office and claims against Philip John Shamy fail and must be struck out; (3) the Mannix rule requires the corporate/partnership plaintiffs to be represented by qualified lawyers in view of complexity; and (4) the second amended s…
13 Dec 2010

G WATERHOUSE AND ANOR V CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-3074

Citation

openlaw-31549851_57c5_4108_ad0c_3a76f4f09c43.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered production of the litigation funding agreement to the Court for in‑camera inspection within 15 working days and stayed the proceedings until compliance; disclosure to the defendant was not required initially because the Court must first ensure the funder cannot usurp control and to protect confidential/privileged aspects; the application to remove the proceeding from the Commercial List was declined as the case remained suitable for Commercial List management.

New Zealand Case Law

WRIGHT v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2695

MARTIN LYTTELTON v THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2017] NZHC 1708

FAWCETT v THE CROWN SOLICITOR OF HAMILTON & ANOR [2014] NZHC 2713

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE & ORS V CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED & ORS COA CA556/2012

G WATERHOUSE AND ANOR V CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED HC AK CIV 2010-404-3074