New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance of documents

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 2022

JACKSON v GRANT [2022] NZHC 3148

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3148
Court

High Court

The liquidator achieved limited success on the discovery application but initial categories were significantly overbroad and included irrelevant matters which increased opponents' costs; accordingly the Court awarded costs to the liquidator against the lenders on a 2B basis but reduced the award by 50% under rr 14.7(d) and 14.7(f)(ii), and refused any costs against the receivers because they either did not possess relevant documents or had proposed the narrow discovery ultimately ordered and the liquidator failed to engage to agree scope.
11 May 2022

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 983 [10 May 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 983
Court

High Court

The plaintiffs did not obtain substantive success on their discovery application because the documents located and informally produced were either produced by or sent to the plaintiffs' contractors and related to the undisputed consent process; therefore costs follow the event and are awarded to Queenstown Lakes District Council on a 2B basis in the specified sum.
1 May 2018

AFI Management Pty Limited v Lepionka & Company Investments Limited [2018] NZHC 892

Citation

[2018] NZHC 892
Court

High Court

The Court held Ladbrook remained a non-party and had acted reasonably in opposing the non-party discovery application; his claimed costs were partly excessive and should be reduced from $14,370 to $12,000 as reasonable actual costs, and he should receive an additional $1,000 for costs of the costs application; GLW was not ordered to pay.
25 May 2016

LWR DURHAM PROPERTIES LTD (In Receivership) v VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LTD & IAG NEW ZEALAND LTD [2016] NZHC 1106

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1106
Court

High Court

Defendants must pay the Bank of New Zealand's costs on a 2B scale plus a 25% uplift because the defendants unreasonably failed to accept the Bank's pre‑existing offer to give discovery on payment given that the plaintiff's amended pleading had removed any live claim for indemnity, rendering pursuit of the Bank's internal credit memoranda unnecessary and justifying increased costs under r 14.6(3).
7 Dec 2015

THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v IMRAN MOHAMMED KAMAL [2015] NZHC 3095

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3095
Court

High Court

Application to vary tailored discovery dismissed because the additional categories sought were not shown to be relevant to pleaded issues, amounted to a fishing expedition into the Commissioner's pre-litigation decision-making, and did not satisfy the limited grounds for variation under High Court Rules r 8.17; tailored discovery agreed by the parties should stand.
8 Oct 2015

LIGHTER QUAY RESIDENTS' SOCIETY INC v WATERFRONT PROPERTIES (2009) LTD [2015] NZHC 2466

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2466
Court

High Court

The court granted targeted discovery of transactional source documents (general ledgers, GST returns and correspondence already agreed) and ordered production of bank/source records from the plaintiffs (or affidavit explaining efforts to obtain them) because those documents were directly relevant and best evidence of payments; the court refused orders for Waterfront's high‑level financial accounts and BDO due diligence materials because they were not sufficiently relevant to the quantum issues and were speculative or too general; non‑party discovery from Mrs Abel was ordered with plaintiffs t…
11 Dec 2013

STEFFENSEN v BGW INVESTMENTS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 3310

Citation

[2013] NZHC 3310
Court

High Court

Documents for the period after May 2009 (and in particular after December 2008) are not relevant to the plaintiffs' losses arising from BGW's failure to sell the equity funds in December 2007; mitigation may extend to December 2008 but beyond that the plaintiffs assumed the market risk and further discovery is unnecessary, so the application for particular discovery is dismissed.
5 Mar 2013

KIM MARGARET VAN GOG V OWEN GRAUMAN HC AK CIV 2011-404-002948

Citation

openlaw-5c8fc896_2214_47d1_a8e3_c719a2f3977f.pdf
Court

High Court

Defendant's particulars supporting the affirmative defence of truth were too general, amounted to an allegation of a system of wrongdoing and failed to identify specific instances or particulars sufficient to establish relevance; accordingly he was not entitled to particular discovery and the application for production of the identified business and booking records is dismissed.
20 Dec 2011

COMFORTPLUS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) V PORTSMOUTH INVESTMENTS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) HC CHCH CIV-2010-409-002043

Citation

openlaw-2e0bdcc3_4fbc_4754_afec_58b56606d239.pdf
Court

High Court

The applicants have not satisfied the Court at this interlocutory stage that they were impeded by irrelevant discovery so as to justify an order for costs under r 8.29; because relevance under the Peruvian Guano approach and the plaintiffs' asserted lines of enquiry may only reliably be assessed once briefs of evidence and issues at trial are clarified, the application for special costs is adjourned to be considered when overall costs of the litigation are addressed.
29 Mar 2011

EASTON AGRICULTURE LIMITED v MANAWATU-WANGANUI REGIONAL COUNCIL HC PMN CIV-2008-454-31

Citation

openlaw-f637524a_7a58_4b66_ba72_54a371aff193.pdf
Court

High Court

The court ordered production of the plaintiffs' farming accounts for 2004–2007 because they are a relevant source of basic accounting data for the defendant's expert to test the components of the loss of profits claim, subject to caveats about limitations of their utility and the plaintiffs' entitlement to rebut reliance on any material errors; costs of the application were reserved as no order (each party to bear own costs).