New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings and particulars

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2023

DOBBE v TAYLOR [2023] NZHC 2122

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2122
Court

High Court

The Court refused to strike out the Fair Trading Act and pre-contractual misrepresentation causes of action because the material before the Court did not establish there was no reasonable possibility the claims were brought within the applicable discovery/late-knowledge limitation periods; the pleadings required some further particularisation but the limitation issues were matters for trial when full evidence can be tested.
7 Dec 2020

STOKES v PRAIN [2020] NZCA 627

Citation

[2020] NZCA 627
Court

Court of Appeal

The Deputy Registrar correctly refused to dispense with security for costs because the appellant did not demonstrate impecuniosity or that his interest in land was an adequate substitute, an unpaid costs order against a third party cannot offset prospective costs liability, and the appeal had limited prospects in light of the unappealed substantive strike out; accordingly the usual protection of security for costs was justified.
15 Aug 2019

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS [2019] NZHC 2007

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2007
Court

High Court

Court required claimants who will proceed at stage two to provide individual pleadings and specified supplementary discovery and strict briefing timetables; parts of the expert evidence addressing FY05 revenue projection were held inadmissible because they were irrelevant to liability under s56 and not substantially helpful under s25 Evidence Act 2006; court ordered security for costs of NZD 1.65 million by 16 August 2019 or specified alternatives by 23 August 2019 including several security from largest claimants and a personal guarantee from the litigation funder, and warned non-compliance…
25 Jul 2019

Minister of Education v James Hardie New Zealand Limited [2019] NZHC 1760

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1760
Court

High Court

Application for particular discovery dismissed because documents concerning face (surface) checking are not relevant to the case as presently pleaded in the sixth amended statement of claim; face checking is not pleaded as a defect or a pleaded contributing factor so Carter Holt was not obliged to discover documents specific to it; if Ministry amends its pleadings to include face checking by 1 August 2019, discovery of documents on that discrete issue would be proportionate and Carter Holt should give discovery by the targeted process discussed.
14 Sept 2018

RED STAG TIMBER LIMITED v JUKEN NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2459

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2459
Court

High Court

The court struck out the pleaded claims for an account of profits and the plaintiff's first cause of action (2008–2012) for failure to plead sufficient particulars and being speculative, allowed general pleading that other causes may be particularised after discovery where a reasonably arguable case exists, and refused Juken's application for a separate preliminary hearing on limitation because limitation and liability overlap such that a split hearing would not dispose the litigation or save time.
14 Aug 2018

SELF-REALIZATION MEDITATION AND HEALING CENTRE CHARITABLE TRUST (NEW ZEALAND) v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 2077

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2077
Court

High Court

Third party notices to Building Onward Ltd and Hi Tech Building Systems Ltd were set aside because the plaintiffs pleaded case did not assert defective works against those builders such that their involvement was central; the likely result was disproportionate burden, delay and risk of the third parties sitting idly through complex interlocutory and trial processes; interests of justice and convenience favoured permitting IAG to pursue any builder-specific claims in focused separate proceedings, and no compelling limitation or prejudice justified keeping them joined.
18 May 2018

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2018] NZHC 1099

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1099
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was refused for eleven publications because there exist arguable defences of truth or honest opinion or genuine factual disputes requiring trial; two publications lacked arguable defences on the evidence but the Court declined to enter summary judgment on discretionary grounds (practical prejudice, appeal risk and global damages assessment); the strike out application was dismissed but defendant granted a final opportunity to re-plead truth and honest opinion separately in compliance with s40 and relevant particularisation rules.
12 Sept 2017

WESTPAC NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ANDERSON [2017] NZHC 2204

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2204
Court

High Court

Court ordered the plaintiff to provide specified further and better particulars and to incorporate previously provided informal particulars into a second amended statement of claim: particulars of the "financial difficulties" (para 17), particulars of Mr Sugden's communications specifying method and time (para 18), particulars of the aspects of financial deterioration (para 19), identification of who was dishonest (para 24), amendment or completion of Schedule B so that all relied documents are particularised (para 26), and identification of the Westpac individual(s) induced and dates of indu…
24 Aug 2017

CORRICK v SILICH [2017] NZHC 2033

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2033
Court

High Court

The Court refused indemnity costs but awarded costs to the first to fifth defendants on the 2B band increased by 50% because the plaintiffs' pleadings and conduct caused unnecessary steps and meritless arguments warranting uplift under r 14.6(3); however the conduct did not meet the threshold for indemnity under r 14.6(4). Items 20 and 21 (discovery and inspection) are to be assessed on 2A and defendants may recover preparation costs for the vacated trial under item 33; plaintiffs' set-off arguments and GST position were not accepted or proven.
13 Jun 2016

INTERNET TRADERS LIMITED v HUTSON (FORMERLY WILLIAMS) [2016] NZHC 1269

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1269
Court

High Court

The court refused to strike out the pleaded causes of action in whole. It held that claims based on alleged breaches while a director are arguable and that obligations in respect of confidential information may be pleaded under s145 and alternatively at common law; s174 claims were not unarguable but post‑resignation conduct must be particularised to show how it engages s174. The plaintiffs were ordered to re‑plead separating pre‑ and post‑resignation breaches, to provide specified particulars (tax liability, credit card transactions, customer/email and backup particulars, damage calculations…