New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery relevance

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2022

CHAMBERS v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1307

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1307
Court

High Court

The Court declined the plaintiff's broader discovery application because only documents relevant to the pleaded issues are discoverable and the Second Defendant's detailed financial position is not relevant to the pleaded institutional constructive trust or Testamentary Promises claims and, given the size of the estate, is not material to the Family Protection assessment; earlier wills and instructions are relevant and should be provided if held by a party (NZGT), but no broader discovery order against the Second Defendant was granted.
4 Feb 2022

RED STAG TIMBER LTD v JUKEN NEW ZEALAND LTD [2022] NZHC 103

Citation

[2022] NZHC 103
Court

High Court

On the facts and applying the essential difference test, the Court held on balance that the claim for representations made prior to December 2012 was not essentially different from the later claim because the core allegation (use of boron treatment that was non-compliant) was the same across periods; therefore the earlier claim retained the knowledge date of 17 November 2014 for limitation purposes and was not susceptible on the pleaded material to summary dismissal on limitation grounds. However the limitation point raised an arguable error of law warranting leave to appeal; JNL was granted…
23 Jul 2021

INTEGRIA HEALTHCARE (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v ANTIPODES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1867

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1867
Court

High Court

On the pleadings as they stood the Antipodes–Johnson & Johnson agreement and documents evidencing sales made by Johnson & Johnson prior to 1 January 2020 were relevant to issues in the proceeding (liability and quantum); because Antipodes placed quantum in issue and confidentiality is not a bar to disclosure, the court ordered tailored discovery of both the agreement and the sales records subject to a protective regime limiting inspection and requiring confidentiality undertakings.
21 Nov 2019

ROUTHAN v PGG WRIGHTSON REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3039

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3039
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs' broad discovery request was dismissed because the internal documents sought were not relevant to the pleaded causes of action as it stood; limited internal documents concerning the Rural Information Sheet were ordered only because an amended pleading alleging a duty to advise about the vendor's hesitation might render them relevant; agents can rely on the conduit defence, and liability for negligent statements depends on whether a duty to speak can be established.
7 Feb 2017

KIWI TRUSTEE LIMITED v QING LIN [2017] NZHC 108

Citation

[2017] NZHC 108
Court

High Court

The sale agreement was not discoverable because it was not relevant under r 8.7: it could not affect Kiwi Trustee Ltd's enforceable rights under registered easements nor materially affect the pleaded causes of action or measure of damages, and it was unnecessary to determine occupation for nuisance liability.
29 May 2013

PUB CHARITY v DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2013] NZHC 1254

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1254
Court

High Court

Application for further discovery was dismissed because documents of consultation regarding the Gazette notice are not relevant to the plaintiff's pleaded claim seeking to ignore the Gazette limits; the plaintiff must replead if challenging the legality of the notice and may pursue treatment as judicial review; the allocated July fixture was vacated and a new timetable directed by consent.
28 Sept 2011

SPARKSMAN LIMITED V KRS (2003) LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2008-404-4432

Citation

openlaw-04c14a4e_34e5_4997_b09d_105af252eddb.pdf
Court

High Court

Although plaintiffs narrowly crossed the jurisdictional threshold that some relevant undisclosed electronic material might exist, the Court exercised its discretion to decline the r 9.34 inspection application because plaintiffs contributed to delay, the application was late relative to the imminent trial date such that further forensic work would likely derail the trial, the evidential foundation was speculative (no 'smoking gun'), and the prejudice to timely trial administration outweighed any limited prejudice to plaintiffs; defendants awarded costs.

New Zealand Case Law

CHAMBERS v THE NEW ZEALAND GUARDIAN TRUST COMPANY LIMITED [2022] NZHC 1307

RED STAG TIMBER LTD v JUKEN NEW ZEALAND LTD [2022] NZHC 103

INTEGRIA HEALTHCARE (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v ANTIPODES NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1867

ROUTHAN v PGG WRIGHTSON REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2019] NZHC 3039

KIWI TRUSTEE LIMITED v QING LIN [2017] NZHC 108

PUB CHARITY v DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2013] NZHC 1254

SPARKSMAN LIMITED V KRS (2003) LIMITED HC NAP CIV-2008-404-4432