31 Aug 2023
Defendants' sworn and unsworn affidavits were deficient and there is good reason to believe additional relevant documents exist; accordingly the court ordered defendants to file a compliant affidavit of documents providing standard discovery and to disclose specified categories by a fixed date, adjourned determination of confidentiality claims until a compliant affidavit is filed, and reserved costs.
24 Sept 2020
The plaintiff's amended statement of claim is defective because it fails to plead the basis, particulars and amounts of any compensation sought under s 174(2)(b) or whether such compensation is alternative or additional to an order for purchase of shares; accordingly the plaintiff was ordered to further amend to provide the nature, particulars and as-precise-as-possible amounts of compensation sought and whether alternative or additional by 27 November 2020. On discovery the defendants were ordered to file supplementary affidavits and, where in their control, produce bank statement entries sh…
10 Sept 2020
The court granted both discovery applications because the documents sought were relevant as defined by the pleadings, there was prima facie evidence they exist and are within the defendants' control, and disclosure was proportionate; further, financial statements of Haines House Haulage Company Ltd were relevant because that company is closely connected to the plaintiffs and the identity of the employer/contracting entity was in issue.
23 Nov 2018
At interlocutory stage the hacked documents were not excluded because the plaintiffs produced sufficient indicia of authenticity and relevance and admissibility issues can be addressed at trial; plaintiffs satisfied the low threshold for particular discovery against Slater, Graham and FCL under r 8.19 for emails, comments metadata, OIA materials and invoices limited to relevance to the pleaded publications and services, while discovery against Rich and NZFGC is limited to terms/scope of services, ongoing disclosure and enquiries made; plaintiffs' broader discovery into reputation and publicat…
5 Nov 2018
The Court ordered limited further particular discovery where documents were likely relevant and proportionate: an identified non-privileged email (discovery no. 06361) must be disclosed; the Court inspected certain January 2016 solicitor files and upheld privilege over most communications except the one email; BODCO must file a further verified supplementary list disclosing documents evidencing the consideration CAHG agreed to pay and the steps showing how that figure was arrived at and must produce specified BODCO financial statements covering financial years that include 2015 and 2016 and a…
9 Jun 2016
Leave to file the amended discovery application out of time was granted, but the defendants' application for further discovery was declined because the defendants failed to establish prima facie that the requested documents existed in the plaintiff's control or were sufficiently relevant to matters pleaded, and the requests were overly broad and potentially onerous; plaintiffs awarded costs on a 2B basis for the defendants' application and costs relating to the plaintiff's discovery application were reserved.
6 Nov 2015
The court ordered the tailored discovery because documents showing prior publication of the claimed latch were directly relevant to Allegion's invalidity defence, there was credible evidence (draft instruction sheet dated 11/00 and an Interlock News page) giving grounds for believing further third-party communications and marketing documents from 1 June 2000 to 31 March 2001 may exist in the plaintiffs' control, and the estimated search burden (about 30 hours) was proportionate; accordingly Assa Abloy was directed to make a reasonable search and list specified documents and costs were awarded…
19 Dec 2014
The defendant's discovery was insufficient and there were grounds under r 8.19 to believe relevant documents (internal investigation records, meeting notes, management/board minutes, documents underlying decision papers and sales/pricing records) exist or were in control of the defendant or related entities; confidentiality claims were not persuasive to bar inspection by plaintiff's counsel, experts and the plaintiff's director subject to a court undertaking; the defendant must file a supplementary verified affidavit identifying all documents in the specified categories and must specifically…
5 Mar 2013
Defendant's particulars supporting the affirmative defence of truth were too general, amounted to an allegation of a system of wrongdoing and failed to identify specific instances or particulars sufficient to establish relevance; accordingly he was not entitled to particular discovery and the application for production of the identified business and booking records is dismissed.