New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particularisation of pleadings

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2021

BIL NZ TREASURY LIMITED v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 1556

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1556
Court

High Court

The Court exercised discretion to grant targeted further particulars and discovery where the pleadings or discovery were inadequate and the documents were likely relevant and proportionate (ordering PwC to provide particulars on key allegations and to search specified Lotus Notes mailboxes and ordering plaintiffs to provide particulars of contractual engagement and to conduct further searches and affidavit of documents in specified categories), while refusing excessive or legal-question focussed particularisation (declining to order further particulars on matters of law such as existence of f…
24 Aug 2017

Body Corporate 199883 v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 2042

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2042
Court

High Court

The Court declined to strike out the proceedings as a nullity but held the plaintiffs must file a further amended statement of claim within 20 working days providing more detailed particulars for each alleged defect: (a) whether the defect arose from design, construction, mechanical issue or materials during the remedial works; (b) which specific Council duty (consent, inspection, certification) is alleged to have been breached in respect of each defect; (c) particulars and location of any insufficiency in consented plans/specifications relied on; and (d) more precise locations (diagrams perm…
13 Jun 2012

WJ PERRIAM V LE WILKES HC AK CIV-2009-425-284

Citation

openlaw-28bfa981_be1b_400c_954a_14e5db87fe72.pdf
Court

High Court

The fourth amended statement of claim was struck out because it failed to plead any reasonably arguable cause of action: allegations were prolix, speculative and insufficiently particularised; there was no plausible causal link between defendants' conduct (establishing trusts/companies for the husband) and the plaintiff's alleged losses (losses resulted from business failures and creditor claims, not defendants' acts); defendants did not receive beneficial funds alleged; the pleading defects were not capable of effective repair and strike out under r 15.1(1) was warranted.
17 Dec 2009

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ARGON HC AK CIV-2008-404-004551

Citation

openlaw-17fa7933_5e31_4c4c_851d_b3312edae921.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike-out applications were dismissed as premature because the statement of claim is insufficiently particularised; under s 393(2) Building Act 2004 the 10-year longstop excludes the day of the act or omission, so proceedings filed 17 July 2008 can only assert liability for building work carried out from midnight on 17-18 July 1998 onward; acts or omissions prior to that date are statute-barred and cannot be the basis of the claims, but the plaintiff may plead and prove liability based on acts, omissions or ongoing obligations on or after that cutoff date.
17 Dec 2009

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ARGON AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-004551

Citation

openlaw-15617ec7_573b_4f25_81c3_4ba1f8a4b693.pdf
Court

High Court

The strike-out applications were dismissed as premature because the amended claim is insufficiently particularised and factual disputes cannot be resolved on strike-out; however, limitation under Building Act s393 confines recoverable claims to building work carried out from midnight on 17-18 July 1998 onward (the initial day excluded), so plaintiff may only sue for acts or omissions from that time and must re-plead accordingly.
14 Aug 2009

TUARIKI DELAMERE V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV 2008-404-001377

Citation

openlaw-51a22622_3d85_4e4f_b31a_a91e0911ddfa.pdf
Court

High Court

Proceeding struck out because the claimant lacked standing to sue for decisions affecting third parties who had not sought relief, failed to particularise specific wrongful acts and the individual public officers responsible, did not plead required special damages for misfeasance, and the claim was inconsistent with limitations in s6 Crown Proceedings Act; reputational loss in the pleaded form is a matter for defamation not misfeasance.
28 Nov 2008

MOTORWORLD LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ORS V MCGREGOR AND ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-6558

Citation

openlaw-a8335bc6_2e5b_45a1_b2d9_0730f2a8d750.pdf
Court

High Court

Proceeding categorised as Category 2 because, despite multiple causes of action and parties, the issues are relatively straightforward; plaintiffs succeeded in opposing the strike-out application and costs should follow the event; due to the defendants' approach requiring extensive evidential opposition, costs for the strike-out application are to be assessed on Band C with certain evidence-preparation steps assessed at double; plaintiffs may recover 75% of their expert accounting costs ($22,274.49) from the second to fifth defendants as a disbursement; discovery-related costs are reserved fo…

New Zealand Case Law

BIL NZ TREASURY LIMITED v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 1556

Body Corporate 199883 v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 2042

WJ PERRIAM V LE WILKES HC AK CIV-2009-425-284

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ARGON HC AK CIV-2008-404-004551

MINISTER OF EDUCATION V ARGON AND ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-004551

TUARIKI DELAMERE V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL HC AK CIV 2008-404-001377

MOTORWORLD LTD (IN LIQUIDATION) AND ORS V MCGREGOR AND ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-6558