New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery orders

Legal area

Court

22 Dec 2023

GUO v HUMAN RIGHTS REVIEW TRIBUNAL & ORS [2023] NZHC 3883

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3883
Court

High Court

The High Court held the Tribunal acted within its statutory powers and applied the correct legal tests; the applicant failed to discharge the burden to establish grounds to go behind PwC's affidavit of documents under r 8.19; PwC provided credible, cogent evidence explaining why certain electronic documents were irretrievable; there was no error of law, procedural impropriety or Wednesbury unreasonableness in the Tribunal's decision, and the judicial review application was dismissed.
11 Sept 2023

THURSTON v ROBERTSON [2023] NZHC 2538

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2538
Court

High Court

Leave was granted under s 76(2) for the limited purpose of completing discovery because the documents sought (records of any exercise of the settlor's appointment/removal power) are relevant, there are grounds to believe they may exist given the first defendant's role and bankruptcy and the trustee's removal from the Companies Register, the request is proportionate, and the discovery cannot be adequately addressed in the bankruptcy; accordingly the standard discovery order was varied under r 8.17 and particular/non‑party discovery ordered under r 8.19 with further affidavits directed.
29 Nov 2022

JACKSON v GRANT [2022] NZHC 3148

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3148
Court

High Court

The liquidator achieved limited success on the discovery application but initial categories were significantly overbroad and included irrelevant matters which increased opponents' costs; accordingly the Court awarded costs to the liquidator against the lenders on a 2B basis but reduced the award by 50% under rr 14.7(d) and 14.7(f)(ii), and refused any costs against the receivers because they either did not possess relevant documents or had proposed the narrow discovery ultimately ordered and the liquidator failed to engage to agree scope.
11 May 2022

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 983 [10 May 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 983
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs did not obtain substantive success on their discovery application because the documents located and informally produced were either produced by or sent to the plaintiffs' contractors and related to the undisputed consent process; therefore costs follow the event and are awarded to Queenstown Lakes District Council on a 2B basis in the specified sum.
3 Mar 2022

METLIFECARE RETIREMENT VILLAGES LIMITED v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2022] NZHC 351

Citation

[2022] NZHC 351
Court

High Court

The Court applied the default rule that costs follow the event while making targeted departures based on conduct and complexity: where a party prevailed on a discrete interlocutory step it received scale costs (2B/3B); complex affidavit preparation justified awarding time band C for that step; agreed Independent Counsel processes did not, by themselves, attract costs awards; and where a party unduly prolonged or complicated the process limited uplifts or reductions were applied. The Court quantified and apportioned costs across multiple discovery hearings accordingly and made specific monetar…
22 Feb 2022

OPES PARTNERS LTD v SDOGENERAL LTD [2022] NZHC 239

Citation

[2022] NZHC 239
Court

High Court

Ordinary discovery in the statutory demand proceeding was ordered because Woolford J had already ordered substantially the same discovery in a parallel r 8.20 pre-commencement discovery proceeding, Opes had established the outline of a counterclaim sufficient to meet the threshold for discovery, and it would be unreasonable to decline discovery in this proceeding where discovery has already been ordered to enable Opes to formulate its counterclaim; discovery is ordered with the refinements previously imposed by Woolford J.
10 Feb 2022

BIL NZ TREASURY LIMITED v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS NEW ZEALAND [2022] NZHC 150

Citation

[2022] NZHC 150
Court

High Court

The court ordered limited further discovery: PwC must rerun specified pre-2011 Lotus Notes searches using plaintiffs' terms and disclose relevant results; most plaintiff requests for post-2011 Lotus Notes, iManage folders, Wellington shared drive, hard copy boxes and other specific discovery were dismissed because plaintiffs failed to show credible evidence those searches would yield relevant undisclosed material; the plaintiffs must provide discovery or affidavits regarding the Manuka Health sale and purchase agreement and must discover exchanges with EY Law on the efficacy of the mechanism…
25 Nov 2021

LSK BUILDERS 2011 LIMITED v CHAMBERLAIN [2021] NZHC 3186

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3186
Court

High Court

The appeal succeeded only on the discovery issue: the High Court ordered tailored discovery limited to specified categories (documents relating to the two neighbouring builds: contracts including provisional sums, variations and their costs, geotechnical reports, and final building costs; and the Chamberlains' documentation except agreed exclusions and specified email exchanges). The timetable appeal was dismissed as moot. The District Court costs award relating to the rehearing was quashed and remitted to the District Court for reconsideration; costs of this appeal were to lie where they fal…
5 Oct 2021

PATEL v DUNBAR [2021] NZHC 2634

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2634
Court

High Court

The Court recalled its earlier judgment for the limited purpose of reconsidering the precise terms of the discovery orders. The Court held the Dunbar interests are entitled to a comprehensive list of hardware, email addresses and telephone numbers materially used for the business and to discovery of electronic exchanges with customers, but inspection of mixed personal devices must be proportionate: cloning by a forensic specialist is permissible, initial relevance review should be performed by the Patel interests' solicitors who must categorise material as personal or business with a mechanis…
15 Jul 2021

TE WARENA TAUA v TAHI ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2021] NZSC 88

Citation

[2021] NZSC 88
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was granted because the issues about entitlement to speak for parties and the appropriateness of representation orders are integral to the appeal and may require the Supreme Court to revisit representation orders made below; the appeal is to be heard with submissions on those matters.