New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subpoenas

Legal area

Court

13 Nov 2018

NUKU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 2941

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2941
Court

High Court

The subpoenas for Detective Reid and Ms Temm were set aside because they were being used as a means to obtain non-party discovery rather than to produce evidence at hearing, the categories sought were irrelevant to the pleaded judicial review claim or insufficiently specific, and material relating to IPCA investigations was protected by s 33 privilege which had not been waived; the appropriate mechanism is tailored discovery by affidavit. A will-say statement was ordered for the prisoner witness.
31 Aug 2018

MACKENZIE v MACKENZIE [2018] NZHC 2292

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2292
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff persisted in a case that collapsed on his own cross-examination, had not disclosed or considered key documentary evidence and failed without reasonable justification to accept settlement offers, the court found he unnecessarily continued the proceeding and awarded indemnity costs for all steps after service of his brief of evidence (due 3 April 2018) and 2B costs for earlier steps.
15 Feb 2012

ORLOV V NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY COA CA32/2012

Citation

openlaw-da2165e8_f1c5_41e5_9822_fb530c8b5981.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court's use of s 10 Judicature Amendment Act powers to sever the judicial review claim from the Bill of Rights and misfeasance claims because severance was necessary to ensure the judicial review could be determined conveniently and expeditiously within the eight-day fixture, the appellant had adequate forewarning and opportunity to be heard, and severance did not cause unacceptable prejudice given the respondents' chosen evidential strategy and the preservation of cross-examination rights for affidavit makers.
15 Jun 2011

ICON CENTRAL LIMITED V COLLINGWOOD & ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007424

Citation

openlaw-0ed0abfa_5070_42f2_bc64_72388ef9337a.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court determined the proceedings should be categorised as Category 3 and assessed in Band 3; taxi fares to and from court were disallowed as not ordinarily charged separately, while fees for service of subpoenas and investigative agents to obtain witness contact details were allowed as they were specific, reasonably necessary and reasonable in amount; accordingly the plaintiff was awarded costs and disbursements in the specified sums and liability was imposed jointly and severally on the named defendants.
21 Sept 2009

JUNG V TEMPLETON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5383

Citation

openlaw-a6e964e7_9d3d_449b_8786_5ba3a31737b7.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted leave to the defendant to issue subpoenas to compel attendance of mediation attendees and ordered that plaintiffs serve witness statements by 25 September with a list of documents, defendant to serve witness statements by 15 October, and an agreed bundle to be filed by 3pm on 16 October; if witnesses do not co-operate their evidence may be called orally; costs of the application are reserved to the trial judge and further issues are to be referred to the trial judge.

New Zealand Case Law

NUKU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 2941

MACKENZIE v MACKENZIE [2018] NZHC 2292

ORLOV V NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY COA CA32/2012

ICON CENTRAL LIMITED V COLLINGWOOD & ORS HC AK CIV-2008-404-007424

JUNG V TEMPLETON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5383