New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance for discovery

Legal area

Court

6 Apr 2020

ROUTHAN v PGG WRIGHTSON REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 702

Citation

[2020] NZHC 702
Court

High Court

The judgment of 21 November 2019 was recalled because the Associate Judge conflated the plaintiffs' compound pleading of negligent systems and negligent misstatement and failed to consider the negligent systems cause of action when assessing relevance for discovery; the Court ordered further discovery limited to documents about the defendant's processes to verify production levels before, at and after the purchase and steps taken to verify the plaintiffs' farm production, finding those documents relevant, likely to exist and proportionate to produce.
5 May 2016

ROBINSON v WHANGAREI HEADS ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2016] NZHC 891

Citation

[2016] NZHC 891
Court

High Court

The applications were dismissed because the plaintiff failed to show a significant improvement in financial position since discharge from bankruptcy or a material improvement in the merits of his claims; the security for costs order should remain to protect defendants given the plaintiff's continuing credit risk, slim prospects on the tort claims (reinforced by his conviction), and the contractual claim is unconventional and exposes defendants to costs; the discovery sought was not relevant to the pleaded causes of action and therefore not ordered.
29 Oct 2012

THE ZONE CORPORATION LIMITED V AMERICAN EXPRESS MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HC WN CIV-2011-485-1274

Citation

openlaw-e3cffc3c_3f01_40b4_b958_c4352d3fa41e.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that documents revealing the intended scope and marketing of the IP ZONE service as it relates to New Zealand are relevant and ordered the defendant to file a r 8.19 affidavit and make specified materials available for inspection, limited disclosure of executed contracts only to those that involve services which might be used by New Zealand businesses or individuals, refused a broader fishing disclosure, and awarded costs to the plaintiff.
10 Nov 2010

N-TECH LIMITED AND ANOR V ABOOTH LIMITED (IN REC.) AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-003362

Citation

openlaw-2dfdc7ed_5b42_4a45_942d_c60edec30649.pdf
Court

High Court

The settlement agreement (other than the formal admissions filed) that records the terms on which the LSL defendants admitted liability is discoverable because it is relevant to the issue of loss and the quantification of the LSL defendants' claim against the Denham Martin third parties; negotiations leading to the agreement are not discoverable because they are subsumed in the final agreement and discovery should be ordered conservatively.
10 Nov 2010

NEVILLE HOLDINGS LTD V CHAN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-2132

Citation

openlaw-3f660c7f_05d3_450e_96b5_0d700543c621.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court was satisfied that NBNZ and Kiwibank may have been in control of relevant documents and that discovery from 1 June 2008 to 31 March 2009 was reasonably necessary; accordingly an order under r 8.26 was made requiring each bank to file an affidavit as to control and, if in control, to make available for inspection documents within specified classes, subject to exclusions (statements of assets and liabilities and valuations).

New Zealand Case Law

ROUTHAN v PGG WRIGHTSON REAL ESTATE LIMITED [2020] NZHC 702

ROBINSON v WHANGAREI HEADS ENTERPRISES LIMITED [2016] NZHC 891

THE ZONE CORPORATION LIMITED V AMERICAN EXPRESS MARKETING & DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION HC WN CIV-2011-485-1274

N-TECH LIMITED AND ANOR V ABOOTH LIMITED (IN REC.) AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-003362

NEVILLE HOLDINGS LTD V CHAN AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2009-404-2132