New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 56 evidence act 2006

Legal area

Court

25 Nov 2021

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY (NZ) LIMITED v DHL SUPPLY CHAIN LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3163 [24 November 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3163
Court

High Court

s56 privilege was not established because, on the evidence, litigation was only a possibility when the Crawford materials were prepared and the dominant purpose of those materials was investigatory and to quantify the insurer's loss (for claims handling and indemnity assessment) rather than preparation for litigation; therefore the claim to privilege fails and the Crawford documents must be discovered; no separate order under r 8.19 was made because Eli Lilly's affidavit of documents adequately identified the claim to privilege.
20 Dec 2017

CULLEN v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & ANOR [2017] NZHC 3241

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3241
Court

High Court

The judicial review was not the appropriate vehicle to invalidate the warrant and the Deputy Registrar did not act improperly; the Deputy Registrar was justified in not filing an affidavit and privilege under s56 applied; costs follow the event subject to judicial discretion and reductions for reasonable cause and excessive claims, resulting in an assessed costs award reduced by 15% to $9,856.60.
1 Oct 2015

NZH LIMITED v RAMSPECS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2396

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2396
Court

High Court

The Court held that litigation privilege under s56 continued because the earlier Nuphlo proceeding and the present NZH proceeding were part of the same legal combat — involving largely the same parties, issues and purpose — and thus the privilege in communications and information prepared for the dominant purpose of Nuphlo's proceeding subsists; accordingly the defendants' application to declare the privilege ended and compel discovery was declined, subject to review of whether specific documents were properly claimed privileged.
13 Aug 2012

GUTTENBEIL V TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-5675

Citation

openlaw-1f05021b_3b11_4863_b869_6ef2c40e0389.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held defendants were entitled to litigation privilege for investigation materials and witness statements from the dates defended (Tower from 16 June 2009; IAG from 17 June 2009) because litigation was reasonably apprehended then; internal working papers of independent agents not in defendants' control need not be discovered; defendants must separately list attachments where not already done and file affidavits confirming listing; there was no waiver under s65(2) or s65(3)(a); plaintiffs' discovery application largely dismissed subject to limited orders and timelines.

New Zealand Case Law

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY (NZ) LIMITED v DHL SUPPLY CHAIN LIMITED [2021] NZHC 3163 [24 November 2021]

CULLEN v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & ANOR [2017] NZHC 3241

NZH LIMITED v RAMSPECS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2396

GUTTENBEIL V TOWER INSURANCE LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-5675