New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery and affidavit of documents

Legal area

Court

2 Jul 2018

STAPLES v FREEMAN [2018] NZHC 1604

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1604
Court

High Court

Schedule A was insufficient because it failed to distinguish publication facts (s38(a)) from the facts and circumstances relied on to support their truth (s38(b)); defendants must replead to separately identify publication facts and supporting particulars. The journalistic source protection in s68(1) did not apply to prevent disclosure of the identity of the informant or more detailed document identification because the public interest in disclosure (including allegations of criminality and alleged breach of a court injunction and the need to test genuineness of opinions) outweighed the publi…
17 Mar 2017

ALPHACASA LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 486

Citation

[2017] NZHC 486
Court

High Court

The Court held the defamation causes of action (based principally on the 23 November 2012 press release and subsequent publications) were pleaded with sufficient particularity when read as a whole and that the defendants were adequately put on notice to plead defences; however the injurious falsehood cause required a concise repleading of particulars of malice (though the necessary factual material existed across the statement of claim); discovery concerns were to be addressed by a further affidavit from the plaintiff.
29 Oct 2010

DU CLAIRE V PALMER AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-485-2638

Citation

openlaw-89cd4074_6a75_4765_a898_3897797875c9.pdf
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the application for security for costs because, on balance, ordering security large enough to protect the defendants would likely prevent the plaintiff from accessing the courts, the plaintiff's claims were not so weak as to have little chance of success, and there was a plausible connection between the defendants' conduct and the plaintiff's impecuniosity; accordingly refusal of security was just in all the circumstances and time to file defences was extended.
29 Sept 2010

CAM HODGSON V INVERELL PROPERTIES LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-2343

Citation

openlaw-c6b09a58_b00a_46e8_a6b3_903f885ba048.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held that both applications succeed in part: ordinarily particulars should precede discovery but exceptions exist where particulars are within defendant's knowledge; plaintiff must provide detailed particulars of shareholdings, dates, alleged exclusionary acts, requests for information, particulars of alleged failures to keep accounts and audits, and alleged consultations; defendant must provide staged particular discovery of documents relating to transactions that changed the nature of the business and non‑arm's‑length payments, with further discovery contingent on plaintiff's more pre…
16 May 2007

DUNCAN & ANOR V ALAN REAY CONSULTANTS LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-000251

Citation

openlaw-0601f249_6394_46fe_afdb_c88748138806.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the r330B expert conference application was premature because defendants control relevant source documents and adequate discovery must be resolved first; moreover, a conference without legal advisers or legal assistance for joint statements could not be ordered absent party agreement, so the r330B application was adjourned sine die and discovery was ordered to be progressed on a strict timetable.

New Zealand Case Law

STAPLES v FREEMAN [2018] NZHC 1604

ALPHACASA LTD v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2017] NZHC 486

DU CLAIRE V PALMER AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2009-485-2638

CAM HODGSON V INVERELL PROPERTIES LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-2343

DUNCAN & ANOR V ALAN REAY CONSULTANTS LIMITED AND ORS HC CHCH CIV 2006-409-000251