New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

In-house counsel privilege

Legal area

Court

20 Jun 2019

NZ IRON SANDS HOLDINGS LTD v TOWARD INDUSTRIES LTD [2019] NZHC 1416

Citation

[2019] NZAR 1199
Court

High Court

The Court ordered discreet inspection of a 10% sample of documents (52 documents) by an Associate Judge under r 8.25 to test whether TIL's privilege claims are justified, declined to order further searches of the additional custodians under r 8.19 as speculative and disproportionate, returned unredacted mediation-related affidavit material to NZIS (which the Judge had not read), and reserved costs pending the outcome of the limited inspection.
2 Aug 2018

MIAH v AMP LIFE LIMITED (No.2) [2018] NZHC 1964

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1964
Court

High Court

External counsel communications were privileged under s54; privilege for in-house counsel communications failed because insurer did not prove practising certificates or that communications were legal rather than managerial; litigation privilege under s56 failed because insurer did not establish litigation was reasonably apprehended nor that preparation for litigation was the dominant purpose of Deloitte and other investigative materials; settlement privilege under s57 failed because there was no attempt to mediate or negotiate settlement and no dispute in the relevant sense; accordingly most…
9 Apr 2014

ROBERT & ORS v FOXTON EQUITIES LTD [2014] NZHC 726

Citation

[2014] NZHC 726
Court

High Court

The Court ordered particular discovery in narrowed terms for the three categories because the requested documents were relevant to issues in dispute (including the vendor's state of mind and cost/benefit valuation) and prima facie existed in defendant's control; it held TAL was an authorised agent for obtaining legal services so privilege extended to communications via TAL; most solicitor-client, litigation and settlement privilege claims were upheld on the basis that the communications were made for legal advice or for dominant litigation/settlement purposes, except limited parts of two True…
31 Mar 2010

PUBLIC TRUST V HOTCHILLY LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-704

Citation

openlaw-edab2c02_e6ec_47a2_8579_d3eb7df90426.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court applied the dominant purpose and reasonable apprehension tests: documents prepared before litigation was a probable prospect to determine cause or policy cover were not privileged; documents created after an insurer reasonably apprehended litigation and prepared primarily to enable or assist legal representation were privileged; communications with in‑house counsel and agents acting on behalf of insurer/insured for legal advice attract legal professional privilege.

New Zealand Case Law

NZ IRON SANDS HOLDINGS LTD v TOWARD INDUSTRIES LTD [2019] NZHC 1416

MIAH v AMP LIFE LIMITED (No.2) [2018] NZHC 1964

ROBERT & ORS v FOXTON EQUITIES LTD [2014] NZHC 726

PUBLIC TRUST V HOTCHILLY LIMITED HC WN CIV-2009-485-704