New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Reply evidence

Legal area

Court

25 Mar 2022

BODY CORPORATE 366567 v EQUUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2022] NZCA 80

Citation

[2022] NZCA 80
Court

Court of Appeal

Where a defendant elects to call evidence in support of an affirmative defence and does not rely on a formal rule‑based admission, fairness and natural justice require that the plaintiff be permitted to adduce limited reply evidence unless doing so would cause prejudice or injustice; here no such prejudice was shown, so leave to adduce the reply evidence was properly granted.
1 Sept 2016

BANNOCK, BANNOCK AND OXFORD STREET TRUSTEES (2010) LIMITED AND ORS v MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2072

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2072
Court

High Court

The judge admitted or excluded the challenged passages based on relevance and whether the material constituted a legitimate reply to unchallenged aspects of the defendant's evidence; admissibility was granted where paragraphs were relevant or responsive and excluded where they were irrelevant.
5 Jun 2015

BODY CORPORATE 330324 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1232

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1232
Court

High Court

Adjournment was declined because the defendants relied on privileged without prejudice draft materials and speculative assertions about yet-to-be-filed reply evidence; the reply briefs were not yet filed and it was premature to infer they would necessitate supplementary work; the appropriate remedy for inadmissible reply material is an admissibility challenge at trial not adjournment; defendants' own delays had contributed to time pressure; and an adjournment would cause prejudice to plaintiffs and disrupt court resources, so granting an adjournment was not necessary to do justice between the…
23 Sept 2014

BODY CORPORATE 325261 v COOKE AND McDONOUGH & ORS [2014] NZHC 2306

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2306
Court

High Court

The Court concluded the 10AMSOC is cumbersome and requires amendment but did not introduce new causes of action; plaintiffs granted opportunity to amend pleadings up to a new close of pleadings date to provide clarity on defects, damage and remedial costs; SML's strike out/particulars application was partially upheld in that deficiencies must be remedied, but the evidence application was dismissed and the plaintiffs' further expert evidence was not excluded; the Court set a new timetable and directed rationalisation of evidence rather than micromanagement.
6 Aug 2010

JOSE AND ORS V WELLINGTON REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-867

Citation

openlaw-27da8202_7a80_4a59_aaad_301088e20cf5.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce the proposed affidavit was granted because special reasons existed: the appellants had sought an adjournment to address reply evidence filed shortly before the hearing, the evidence is material to rebut the respondent's assertions that no repayments exist and to explain why particulars are lacking, and credibility is for the appeal judge to determine; accordingly the appeal court should have the material before it and the respondent may file a reply affidavit within 21 days.
3 Jun 2010

BALLANCE AGRI-NUTRIENTS LTD V RAVENSDOWN FERTILISER CO-OPERATIVE LTD AND LINCOLN UNIVERSITY HC AK CIV-2009-404-002171

Citation

openlaw-a4459d2e_1605_4be1_86f0_ac2233281025.pdf
Court

High Court

Given the respondent was materially disadvantaged by the late-filed expert affirmation which raised new substantive matters and potential challenges to the expert's impartiality, and given severe time constraints and public interest in avoiding part-heard patent trials, the interests of justice required a limited adjournment on specific terms including a new three-day fixture and directed timetable for reply evidence.

New Zealand Case Law

BODY CORPORATE 366567 v EQUUS INDUSTRIES LIMITED [2022] NZCA 80

BANNOCK, BANNOCK AND OXFORD STREET TRUSTEES (2010) LIMITED AND ORS v MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2072

BODY CORPORATE 330324 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2015] NZHC 1232

BODY CORPORATE 325261 v COOKE AND McDONOUGH & ORS [2014] NZHC 2306

JOSE AND ORS V WELLINGTON REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-867

BALLANCE AGRI-NUTRIENTS LTD V RAVENSDOWN FERTILISER CO-OPERATIVE LTD AND LINCOLN UNIVERSITY HC AK CIV-2009-404-002171