New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Specific discovery

Legal area

Court

9 Jul 2014

WAIHOPAI VALLEY VINEYARD LTD v SAVVY VINEYARDS 3550 LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1599

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1599
Court

High Court

The Court refused Waihopai's application for general disclosure of the supply contracts because Savvy's solicitor's letter adequately described the price mechanism and amounts relevant to the injunction hearing and left no room for inference of adjustments; the Court ordered limited disclosure only of any payments already received by Savvy for the 2014 harvest via a solicitor's letter and restricted use of that information to the pending injunction application; all other discovery requests were dismissed and costs reserved.
21 Jun 2011

MANDEL ZHANG V FEI FEI FANG COA CA199/2011

Citation

COA CA199/2011
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any question of law or fact capable of bona fide and serious argument; there were concurrent factual findings by the Family Court and High Court applying s 2D(2) correctly; the interlocutory matters were ancillary and not warranting separate appeal absent exceptional circumstances; costs were awarded against the applicant.
2 Nov 2010

ZHANG V FANG HC AK CIV-2010-404-1424

Citation

openlaw-2a059c45_231b_47fa_bbaf_e388991d93a4.pdf
Court

High Court

Both applications were dismissed: discovery was refused because the discovery application was made late, had previously been withdrawn in the Family Court, there was uncertainty documents could be obtained in time and the need to preserve the scheduled fixture; leave to adduce new evidence was refused because the material was not 'fresh' (did not arise after the decision appealed from) and there were no special reasons under r20.16(3) to admit evidence aimed merely at disproving factual determinations of the trial court.
14 Jul 2010

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LTD V BEATTIE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-3178

Citation

openlaw-130a46c7_deb4_4694_ad08_7f1205b9e7bb.pdf
Court

High Court

The court ordered a conditional interlocutory timetable requiring the plaintiff to file its interim injunction application by 16 July 2010, directed production of a verified list of documents and contemporaneous production of financial accounts for years 2004–2010 by specified dates, reserved leave for the defendants to apply for specific discovery by 30 July 2010, and directed the two applications (discharge and injunction) be heard jointly after 20 September 2010 with two days allocated.
2 Dec 2008

MT HOWLAND V THE SALVATION ARMY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1538

Citation

openlaw-ae45810e_7cae_4b62_a825_cb0c5dabc276.pdf
Court

High Court

The discovery sought is directly relevant to the determination of leave under the Limitation Act (disability and reasonable discoverability); accordingly specific discovery is necessary and the defendants' application for discovery is granted with a timetable for verified lists and production by 27 March 2009.
11 Aug 2006

RILEY V RILEY & ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-1930

Citation

openlaw-f9f24b75_688a_4223_a524_5fd8b17e2ba5.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for discovery was necessary because there had been no compliant High Court affidavit of documents and correspondence was unanswered, but the first respondent's subsequent cooperation and third party responses largely resolved the issues; consequently the applicant was entitled only to limited costs for the mention hearing, not a broader costs award.

New Zealand Case Law

WAIHOPAI VALLEY VINEYARD LTD v SAVVY VINEYARDS 3550 LTD & ORS [2014] NZHC 1599

MANDEL ZHANG V FEI FEI FANG COA CA199/2011

ZHANG V FANG HC AK CIV-2010-404-1424

PREMIER EVENTS GROUP LTD V BEATTIE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2010-404-3178

MT HOWLAND V THE SALVATION ARMY HC WN CIV 2008-485-1538

RILEY V RILEY & ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-1930