New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 65 evidence act 2006

Legal area

Court

23 Jul 2014

RENNER v RENNER [2014] NZHC 1743

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1743
Court

High Court

The challenged communications between plaintiff's lawyers and counsel are privileged and that privilege has not been waived under s65(2) or s65(3)(a). Disclosure of a separate email revealing lawyers' concerns did not disclose the content of counsel's advice and plaintiff is not relying on the substance of that counsel advice to justify the settlement; therefore maintaining confidentiality does not cause unfairness and production is refused. Costs awarded to plaintiff on a 2B basis (steps 24 and 26; 0.25 day under step 26).
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.
15 Feb 2010

MARRIOTT V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND AND THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND HC AK CIV 2008-404-001437

Citation

openlaw-2ebc5b8b_84a7_42b4_bd64_3ae702ca78a3.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the plaintiffs did not waive privilege in documents 303 and 304: their interrogatory answers did not disclose a significant part of the privileged documents nor were those documents put in issue; the documents predated knowledge of the sale to Mr Smith so there was no necessary connection to the later advice, and the defendant's alternative grounds lacked evidential basis.
2 Feb 2010

MARRIOTT V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND AND THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND HC AK CIV 2008-404-001437

Citation

openlaw-afe1aa6b_8196_4f68_8dc8_25fef31fa9bf.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that partial disclosure of the information was not in circumstances inconsistent with a claim of confidentiality and the plaintiffs had not put the documents' contents in issue; accordingly there was no waiver of privilege and the application to set aside the privilege claims failed.

New Zealand Case Law

RENNER v RENNER [2014] NZHC 1743

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

MARRIOTT V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND AND THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND HC AK CIV 2008-404-001437

MARRIOTT V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF LAND INFORMATION NEW ZEALAND AND THE REGISTRAR-GENERAL OF LAND HC AK CIV 2008-404-001437