New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance and necessity

Legal area

Court

24 Feb 2021

HEY v HEY [2021] NZHC 263

Citation

[2021] NZHC 263
Court

High Court

The court found s 54 protects communications, not mere facts such as the date on which documents were provided to counsel; defendant failed to prove that disclosure of the dates would reveal privileged communications or that the dates were intended to be confidential; accordingly the claim to privilege over the interrogatories was rejected and an order under r 8.38 was made requiring answers to the specified interrogatories within 14 days.
4 Dec 2017

UNIVERSAL EDUCATION GROUP LIMITED TRADING AS NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL COLLEGE 2008 v NEW ZEALAND QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY [2017] NZHC 2988

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2988
Court

High Court

Having reviewed the documents filed in camera, the Court concluded the contested materials comprised drafts, internal memoranda and emails that were not sufficiently relevant or necessary to decide the specific challenge to the 14 November 2017 cancellation decision; deliberative immunity did not need to be engaged and on the Court's inherent jurisdiction no order for discovery was made.
23 Jul 2010

HART V R SC 74/2009

Citation

HART V R SC 74/2009
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held the prior consistent statement to a third party was admissible under s35(2) because the cross-examination amounted to a challenge of recent invention and the statement was necessary to respond to that challenge; s35(2) does not rigidly require the prior statement to predate the alleged invention and, once admitted under s35(2), the statement is admissible for all purposes including as evidence tending to prove the truth of its contents; the trial judge's summing-up error was favourable to the appellant and caused no miscarriage of justice.

New Zealand Case Law

HEY v HEY [2021] NZHC 263

UNIVERSAL EDUCATION GROUP LIMITED TRADING AS NEW ZEALAND NATIONAL COLLEGE 2008 v NEW ZEALAND QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY [2017] NZHC 2988

HART V R SC 74/2009