New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particulars of claim

Legal area

Court

20 Dec 2022

O’NEIL v BEATTIE [2022] NZHC 3504

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3504
Court

High Court

Most requests for further particulars were refused because the matters were either already admitted by the defendants, irrelevant to the pleaded causes of action, open‑ended, or concerned internal mechanics within defendants' control (eg how Hickory Investments(2013) Ltd would effect transfers). Limited particulars were ordered where necessary to clarify the claim: confirm plaintiffs' cash contribution, state whether asserted terms are express or implied, be explicit on timing of transfer upon title availability, and clarify Moby's capacity and reliance on the privity provisions; plaintiffs m…
30 Jun 2022

HENNAH & ORS v WESTPAC BANKING CORPORATION & OR [2022] NZHC 1526

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1526
Court

High Court

The Court found the impecuniosity threshold under HCR r 5.45 satisfied on the evidence and, balancing the parties' interests and the weaknesses identified in the plaintiffs' case, ordered modest security for costs of NZD 25,000 payable by a fixed date, refused to defer security until after discovery, required the plaintiffs to file an amended statement of claim providing clearer particulars by a set date, and dismissed the defendants' costs claim arising from the second plaintiff's discontinuance as disproportionate.
4 Feb 2022

RUST v GREER [2022] NZHC 91

Citation

[2022] NZHC 91
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's pleading in para 15 was insufficiently particularised; the defendant was ordered to disclose all leases and dealings between the Trust and the defendant or associated entities within 28 days and to provide valuations; the plaintiff was ordered to file an amended statement of claim within a further 28 days specifying duties owed, particulars of alleged breaches, particulars of non‑commercial terms if alleged, particulars of the business relationship with the accountant if alleging breach, and details of information requests not satisfied; costs awarded to defendant on a 2A basi…
24 Aug 2021

TECHNOPAK LIMITED v MONZEAL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2181

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2181
Court

High Court

The court held that individual computer files within CAD models and individual drawings within DrawingPacks constitute individual documents and must be listed for discovery; Technopak must provide verified lists showing author and date where not previously provided; the defendants must file an affidavit listing specified CAD drawings and models (including those used for 2012 website renderings) and explain documents no longer in their control; the phrase "including but not limited to" must be removed from the next amended statement of claim, but Schedule 1 as pleaded is sufficiently particula…
27 Apr 2021

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 894

Citation

[2021] NZHC 894
Court

High Court

The Court granted the Council an extension of time to bring the review and ordered the plaintiffs to provide a further breakdown of the estimated remedial costs by category of work (aligned to the plaintiffs' supplied scope of works) by 31 July 2021; the Court held that at this advanced stage of litigation greater particularisation of estimated costs (by category) is required to inform the Council of its potential liability, while accepting precise apportionment by individual defect may be impractical and estimates are acceptable.
17 Mar 2021

KEEMATI LIMITED v MR CIVIL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 538

Citation

[2021] NZHC 538
Court

High Court

Application dismissed because the matter is complex commercial litigation at an early interlocutory stage with unsettled pleadings and security for costs fixed; the proposed representative would likely be both advocate and witness, undermining professional objectivity and fairness, and the limited Mannix exception did not apply.
6 Nov 2020

PENLEY LTD v ATTORNEY GENERAL [2020] NZHC 2927

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2927
Court

High Court

Penley's second supplementary affidavit and the documents produced satisfied its discovery obligations as to category 3 (resource consents); there was no credible basis to believe further relevant resource consents were in Penley's control and therefore no further affidavit was ordered. For category 4 (damages) Penley has substantially complied with discovery though two minor invoices and some supporting spreadsheets/payment certificates remain outstanding; those matters are more likely to be resolved by the second defendant/Texco and the application as to category 4 was adjourned to allow co…
24 Sept 2020

BI v WESTCOAST MINING LTD [2020] NZHC 2505

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2505
Court

High Court

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…
30 Apr 2018

PURE ELITE HOLDINGS LIMITED v PEH NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 844

Citation

[2018] NZHC 844
Court

High Court

The court dismissed the defendant's applications for further particulars because the plaintiffs' pleading and their written responses provided sufficient fair notice of the claim; the additional details sought (specifics of Enertech's 'internal issues', granular particulars of 'significant resources' committed in Jan–Mar 2015, and the underlying computations/comparators for the NZ$108,000,000 valuation) were evidential matters properly addressed by disclosure and expert evidence rather than particulars at the pleading stage; accordingly the particulars requests were unnecessary and refused, a…
15 Mar 2018

LYTTELTON v DAVISON [2018] NZHC 447

Citation

[2018] NZHC 447
Court

High Court

The Court struck out the plaintiff's claims because the pleadings were defective, several causes of action were statute-barred or inadequately particularised, and the allegations were scandalous or an abuse of process; accordingly the defendants were entitled to costs on an increased scale, including an uplift and allowance for second counsel, under High Court Rules r14.6(3)(b)(ii) and applicable authority.