New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery compliance

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2023

GREEN & MCCAHILL HOLDINGS LTD v WILLIAMS [2023] NZHC 3576

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3576
Court

High Court

Given the plaintiff's repeated delays, failures in discovery compliance and multiple changes of counsel proximate to deadlines, the court granted a limited, final extension for filing briefs to 2pm 15 December 2023, varied the close of pleadings to 8 December 2023 and adjusted the timetable, and made an unless order that GMHL's claims against the defendants will be struck out if the briefs are not filed by that deadline because further indulgence would unjustifiably prejudice the defendants and undermine expeditious prosecution.
6 Aug 2020

SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED v SPUD CONSULTING LIMITED NO 2 [2020] NZHC 1957

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1957
Court

High Court

Respondents' discovery compliance was deficient and caused unnecessary proceedings, but the applicant did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that respondents knowingly and without reasonable excuse disobeyed orders; therefore no contempt finding or fines were imposed; costs were awarded to the applicant with a 50% uplift from scale to reflect respondents' contribution to unnecessary time and expense; leave reserved to seek further contempt or indemnity costs if new evidence justifies it, and applicant ordered to file a short costs schedule to quantify the award.
15 Jul 2014

REYNOLDS v CALVERT and ANOR [2014] NZHC 1663

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1663
Court

High Court

Litigation was reasonably apprehended by both defendants from 31 May 2012; many documents authored by or communicated via Alistair Broad are privileged because he was an authorised representative acting as conduit to the defendants' legal advisers and documents prepared for the dominant purpose of litigation attract litigation or legal privilege; however communications with third parties (eg Central Otago District Council, ASB Bank), pre‑litigation documents and publicly available records do not attract litigation privilege; the dishonest purpose exception under s 67 was not established on th…
13 Feb 2013

SAINSBURY LOGAN & WILLIAMS V RA BELL HC WN CIV-2009-091-197

Citation

openlaw-5ed66b92_6dee_4aa6_a172_ac98e8fff1da.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiff was entitled to costs for bringing and pursuing the Unless Order up to the hearing date because the defendant had failed to provide clear and adequate discovery; accordingly the plaintiff is awarded modest costs on a category 2B basis with disbursements fixed by the Registrar up to 30 January 2013, but costs of the 30 January 2013 hearing and thereafter are to lie where they fall.

New Zealand Case Law

GREEN & MCCAHILL HOLDINGS LTD v WILLIAMS [2023] NZHC 3576

SPARK NEW ZEALAND TRADING LIMITED v SPUD CONSULTING LIMITED NO 2 [2020] NZHC 1957

REYNOLDS v CALVERT and ANOR [2014] NZHC 1663

SAINSBURY LOGAN & WILLIAMS V RA BELL HC WN CIV-2009-091-197