New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement confidentiality

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2021

CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LTD v AECOM NEW ZEALAND LTD [2021] NZHC 1649

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1649
Court

High Court

Tailored discovery was refused because the settlement documents between WGP and NZTA relate to delivery‑phase compensation for consenting and COVID‑19 delays and are therefore not relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded claim against the defendants, which is a pre‑contract/tender phase claim whose loss was fixed prior to construction; consequently the documents are not required to assess double recovery or damages against the defendants.
22 Jun 2018

COUNTIES MANUKAU DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1503

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1503
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff acknowledged limited prior disclosure and confidentiality and privacy interests arising from the settlement weighed heavily post-hearing, the court ordered release of the statement of claim and statement of defence but declined a general search of the court file as the broader disclosure would risk confidential settlement terms and undermine orderly administration of justice.
30 Jan 2018

CLARRIE LAWRENCE SMALL and KM TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 324525 [2018] NZHC 19

Citation

[2018] NZHC 19
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there are genuine triable issues whether the settlement allocation was a misallocation, whether the body corporate held settlement funds as trustee or agent for unit owners, and whether committee members breached duties; confidentiality of settlement agreements should be maintained; key legal finding that the body corporate owns common property and did not, as a matter of law, hold settlement proceeds as trustee for unit owners was affirmed, so the plaintiffs have not established no arguable defence and summary judgment is inappropriate.
11 Nov 2014

BODY CORPORATE 172108 v MEADER [2014] NZHC 2794

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2794
Court

High Court

The Body Corporate is ordered to make full disclosure of documents relating to (A) the decision to close in the balconies and associated engineering and consultant advice and communications, and (B) contractors' instructions, variation notices and related consultants' reports, because those documents are relevant to assessing whether the variations are within the Scheme (remediation) or are betterment and thus affect MSL's liability. The Body Corporate is not required to disclose the fifth amended statement of claim or the settlement documentation with Auckland Council (items C and D) because…
1 Aug 2011

AUT UNIVERSITY V JONATHAN RICHARD KIRKPATRICK HC AK CIV-2011-404-004334

Citation

openlaw-d0971fde_3b10_4f7b_aedb_ce7bbdbac7e0.pdf
Court

High Court

Access was refused because r 3.16 factors weighed against disclosure: the privacy interest of an AUT staff member, the real risk disclosure would prejudice an ongoing police investigation and the respondent's fair trial rights, and the potential to prejudice settlement and the fair disposal of an early-stage proceeding where no statement of claim has been filed.
24 Nov 2010

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V METHODIST CHURCH SAMOA NEW ZEALAND MASSEY PARISH HC AK CIV-2010-404-003669

Citation

openlaw-7b65cebb_d9e7_4642_9392_4f37503fc1f6.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the proceeding had not reached the substantive hearing stage r 3.9 did not apply; access could only be sought under rr 3.11/3.13 and, applying the r 3.16 factors, the court exercised its discretion to refuse access because the orderly administration of justice and confidentiality of ongoing settlement negotiations outweighed the principles of open justice and freedom of information at this stage.
1 May 2007

RAPANA V MCBRIDE STREET CARS LTD HC DUN CIV 2007-412-118

Citation

openlaw-4701a984_f500_423e_99ca_9069dee989f6.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the District Court judge acted within his discretion in declining to give credit for the 2 November 2004 Calderbank letter: at the time of the offer the respondent's likely entitlement to judgment and costs exceeded the $5,000 offer, the offer contained conditional/confidential terms that meant it was not a true Calderbank offer, and public interest considerations supported refusal to enforce confidentiality; absent a clear error of principle the appellate court will not disturb the discretionary costs decision.

New Zealand Case Law

CPB CONTRACTORS PTY LTD v AECOM NEW ZEALAND LTD [2021] NZHC 1649

COUNTIES MANUKAU DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1503

CLARRIE LAWRENCE SMALL and KM TRUSTEE SERVICES LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 324525 [2018] NZHC 19

BODY CORPORATE 172108 v MEADER [2014] NZHC 2794

AUT UNIVERSITY V JONATHAN RICHARD KIRKPATRICK HC AK CIV-2011-404-004334

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE V METHODIST CHURCH SAMOA NEW ZEALAND MASSEY PARISH HC AK CIV-2010-404-003669

RAPANA V MCBRIDE STREET CARS LTD HC DUN CIV 2007-412-118