New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Timing of disclosure

Legal area

Court

2 Jun 2016

LIGHTER QUAY RESIDENTS' SOCIETY INC v WATERFRONT PROPERTIES (2009) LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1168

Citation

LIGHTER QUAY RESIDENTS' SOCIETY INC v WATERFRONT PROPERTIES (2009) LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1168
Court

High Court

The court held that a realistic appraisal of the outcomes and conduct showed Waterfront had greater overall success on the competing discovery applications and that plaintiffs had not complied with cooperative discovery practices under r 8.2; accordingly plaintiffs were ordered to pay Waterfront's 2B costs and specified disbursements, to reimburse the third party's discovery costs if unpaid, and the file was to be timetabled and reallocated to the Auckland registry.
5 Jun 2015

HEART OF THE CITY INC v SWNEY [2015] NZHC 1250

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1250
Court

High Court

Balancing the open justice principle against fairness and potential prejudice, the court ordered disclosure of the amended statement of claim and the statements of defence only after all relevant defences were to be filed (after 15 June 2015), declined to order disclosure of other detailed interlocutory materials, and reserved leave for further directions.
16 Jul 2009

BODY CORPORATE NO. 173457 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-003964

Citation

openlaw-a43dc24f_1275_4ac1_90d5_3301cb6123b8.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to refuse the council's application because the interrogatories were served and pressed at an impractical and prejudicial time (immediately prior to mediation and imminent trial), were oppressive, vexatious and prolix, imposed a burden disproportionate to any likely benefit, some matters were already covered in witness statements or required third‑party enquiry or trial evidence, and therefore the interrogatories were not necessary at the time sought.
20 Feb 2006

INTEGRATED PACKAGING LTD V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2003-404-6661

Citation

openlaw-538bb52b_1dea_4c58_a073_edcf3ec651bf.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the parties agreed the transcripts were relevant, the Court ordered production for inspection but conditioned disclosure by prohibiting the plaintiff from providing the transcripts or their contents to Mr Johnstone until he had been interviewed by the defendant; costs were reserved.

New Zealand Case Law

LIGHTER QUAY RESIDENTS' SOCIETY INC v WATERFRONT PROPERTIES (2009) LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1168

HEART OF THE CITY INC v SWNEY [2015] NZHC 1250

BODY CORPORATE NO. 173457 AND ANOR V NORTH SHORE CITY COUNCIL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2004-404-003964

INTEGRATED PACKAGING LTD V THE COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE HC AK CIV 2003-404-6661