New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Relevance of evidence

Legal area

Court

15 Nov 2022

R v WENSOR [2022] NZHC 2983

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2983
Court

High Court

The hearsay excerpts from the deceased's mother and sister‑in‑law, the nominated written statements and the specified portions of the youngest son's video interview were admissible: the deceased was unavailable, the circumstances of the statements provided a reasonable assurance of reliability, the material was relevant to family dynamics and motive and its probative value outweighed any legitimate prejudicial effect; the 14‑year‑old interviewee was competent and consent was appropriate in the circumstances.
16 Mar 2017

AMANDA ADELE WHITE v CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH [2017] NZSC 32

Citation

[2017] 1 NZLR 710
Court

Supreme Court

The recall application was dismissed because the applicants, when ordered to explain the relevance of the bank statements, failed to substantiate their position, thereby justifying the Court of Appeal's and this Court's characterisation of their conduct, and because the applicants' prior intemperate litigation history justified a direction that the Registrar not accept further applications concerning the same dispute.
16 Aug 2016

THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN v MEGA LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1898

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1898
Court

High Court

The Court held that the paragraph 11.5 material is relevant to Judge Ramos' Letter of Request because the evidence indicates the paragraph 11.5 articles likely derived from independent access to the emails (not merely public reposting) and therefore have the capacity to identify the hacker(s) or those acting in concert; the earlier High Court order stands and must be implemented; transmission to the SDNY was ordered with redaction of Mega's paragraph 3 and supervised transmission by Republic counsel, copying the Registrar and Mega's counsel; New York counsel for the Republic were excluded fro…
29 Jul 2015

CARL WILLIAM FRICKLETON v STAG TRADING LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1770

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1770
Court

High Court

The application was dismissed insofar as it sought documents from the former accountant because the defendants swore by affidavit they did not control such documents and the plaintiff produced no evidence to the contrary; the application to amend to include documents concerning MV Dealer complaints and fraud findings was refused as those categories are irrelevant to pleaded issues and relate only to credibility; the request for current account statements since 31 March 2011 was adjourned with leave reserved for the plaintiff to seek a fixture if necessary, and costs were reserved.
15 Dec 2011

CORBETT V PATTERSON AND WESTERN COA CA303/2011

Citation

COA CA303/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

The application for leave to adduce further evidence was dismissed because the proposed evidence was not fresh or cogent and was irrelevant to the narrow issue on appeal (the correctness of the High Court's finding of incapacity and appointment of a litigation guardian); the appellant could and should have sought cross-examination of the psychiatrist in the High Court; and the other material sought to be admitted either related to settled prior proceedings or did not bear on the capacity issue.
7 Nov 2007

RANGATIRA FORESTS LIMITED V TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-483-199

Citation

openlaw-da096c78_6137_4446_92c7_efb8c0f8bc3d.pdf
Court

High Court

The contested evidence was excluded for irrelevance because it did not bear on whether a trespass or conversion occurred (setting aside acquiescence), did not address acquiescence in fact, and did not affect the pleaded measure of damages; leave to seek the evidence later was confined to issues of costs.

New Zealand Case Law

R v WENSOR [2022] NZHC 2983

AMANDA ADELE WHITE v CHRISTOPHER MAURICE LYNCH [2017] NZSC 32

THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN v MEGA LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1898

CARL WILLIAM FRICKLETON v STAG TRADING LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1770

CORBETT V PATTERSON AND WESTERN COA CA303/2011

RANGATIRA FORESTS LIMITED V TRANSIT NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC WN CIV-2006-483-199