New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery of documents

Legal area

Court

4 Jul 2019

KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1 v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZHC 1543

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1543
Court

High Court

Given the defendants' continuing denial of responsibility, documents in Categories J (insurance), P (licensing/branding) and U (agency/representation/joint venture) are prima facie relevant and discovery of those categories is necessary and proportionate to resolve who was responsible for the products; privilege is not a sufficient reason to refuse discovery and temporal scope should be refined by the parties with leave to return to the Court if required.
6 Nov 2018

GAVIN v POWELL [2018] NZHC 2866

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2866
Court

High Court

Where a beneficiary challenges trustees' conduct, the court will order discovery of specific trust-related documents that are relevant and proportionate to pleaded issues, but will not order wide disclosure of solicitor files or documents created for legal advice (privileged). Applying r 8.19 and the principles in Erceg, the court ordered limited discovery of documents recording communications and decisions about the retirement of the court-appointed trustee and the appointment of her replacement while withholding privileged legal-advice materials.
24 May 2017

WALKER v HENDERSON [2017] NZHC 1090

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1090
Court

High Court

The Court found there was a breach of the undertaking given by Walker to the Court because Walker disclosed documents that were personal and irrelevant to the proceedings; the breach constituted contempt. However, because the breach was inadvertent, significant remedial steps were taken promptly by Walker's solicitors, some consequences were beyond Walker's control, and the applicant delayed bringing the contempt application, the Court exercised its discretion to record the finding of contempt but make no further orders and no order as to costs.
23 Nov 2016

CRAIG v STRINGER [2016] NZHC 2808

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2808
Court

High Court

The Court quashed the Associate Judge's refusal because the returned ballot papers were in the plaintiff's possession and were relevant to the defendant's pleaded truth defence; accordingly the plaintiff was ordered to give tailored discovery and make the papers available for inspection. Separately the Court declined a jury trial because ss19A(5)(a) and (b) applied given the case's legal complexity, multiplicity of publications (41 causes), volume of documents, anticipated expert financial evidence, and that both parties are self-represented; overall convenience and administration of justice…
29 Jul 2015

CARL WILLIAM FRICKLETON v STAG TRADING LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1770

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1770
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed insofar as it sought documents from the former accountant because the defendants swore by affidavit they did not control such documents and the plaintiff produced no evidence to the contrary; the application to amend to include documents concerning MV Dealer complaints and fraud findings was refused as those categories are irrelevant to pleaded issues and relate only to credibility; the request for current account statements since 31 March 2011 was adjourned with leave reserved for the plaintiff to seek a fixture if necessary, and costs were reserved.
25 Jul 2014

STOKES v INSIGHT LEGAL TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD [2014] NZHC 1753

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1753
Court

High Court

Defendants awarded costs for stage one on a 2B basis and awarded costs for stage two largely as claimed in schedule B but with specific disallowances and reductions (reduced time for commencement of defence to 1.25 days, disallowance of amended defence claim, disallowance of additional list of documents claim, disallowance of costs for recusal application, and refusal to allow costs for two counsel); Plaintiffs awarded costs for two successful interlocutory reviews (with hearing time corrected); indemnity or increased costs refused because Plaintiffs had reasonable justification to reject the…
4 Aug 2011

TMA GROUP OF COMPANIES LIMITED V COLEMAN HC AK CIV-2011-404-3208

Citation

openlaw-a5a41edc_9287_4d3a_9e15_8cb9288f565d.pdf
Court

High Court

The discretionary power under r 4.56 to add a party was not exercised because no cause of action or relief was pleaded against the proposed fifth defendant and the proposed defendant opposed joinder; joiner for the sole purpose of obtaining documents is unjustified when alternative procedures and striking‑out powers under r 15.1 are available.
3 Aug 2011

THE OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE V PATRICK DEAN NORRIS HC NEL CIV-2011-442-000080

Citation

openlaw-ea3dacea_327a_48df_ac8d_6861f0cf7994.pdf
Court

High Court

In an ordinary civil proceeding the defendant is required to give discovery; the Court may prescribe the form, sequencing and timing of discovery and inspection to ensure effective case management, and a statement of claim that fairly and adequately informs the defendant is not deficient merely because it does not disclose the evidence underlying the plaintiff's investigation.
16 Dec 2010

CHESTERFIELDS PRESCHOOLS LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE SC 96/2010

Citation

SC 96/2010
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the issues raised are overwhelmingly fact specific with little precedential value, the Court of Appeal's guidance and proportionality comments did not disclose a sufficient appearance of error or issue of general importance that would justify intervention by the Supreme Court, and the applicants failed to show a risk of miscarriage of justice; the application for directions was dismissed because the matter of late discovery had been dealt with by the lower court and not appealed.
31 May 2010

FULLERS BAY OF ISLANDS LIMITED AND ANOR V OTEHEI BAY HOLDINGS LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2009-404-7207

Citation

openlaw-785f7504_11e6_4e3f_a4ed_dd204ac5721a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the additional Department of Conservation emails are relevant and discoverable because the plaintiffs' pleaded relief would, if granted, require a concession process under Part 3B of the Conservation Act and the state of the parties' negotiations and agreed terms would form the basis of any such concession application; accordingly the plaintiffs' interlocutory application for further discovery was granted subject to usual confidentiality undertakings and practical directions.