New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Use of discovered documents

Legal area

Court

21 Jul 2022

FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION NEW ZEALAND LTD v WHITTAKER [2022] NZHC 1760

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1760
Court

High Court

Leave was refused for Ernst & Young to rely on Fuji's discovered documents for its amended counterclaim because Ernst & Young failed to demonstrate special circumstances justifying collateral use of discovery and failed to specify which amendments relied on discovery; the trial will proceed on Fuji's amended claim and Ernst & Young's original counterclaim; Ernst & Young was ordered to disclose documents in its control relating to its awareness of some more than minimal loss or damage likely to have resulted from its audits of Fuji's 2013–2015 financial statements conducted in reliance on Fuji…
20 Mar 2019

POROWINI INVESTMENTS LIMITED v HAWTHORNE GEDDES ENGINEERS and ARCHITECTS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 524

Citation

[2019] NZHC 524
Court

High Court

The Court directed that the three named classes of documents (Deloitte report, yellow-highlighted financial records, and franchise agreements) be disclosed to parties' lawyers, retained expert witnesses, specified named individuals (including Mr Roger Taylor; named Hawthorne Geddes personnel James Blackburn, Dean Botica, Philip Higham, Peter Geddes; Hill Construction personnel Senescall and Wayne Hill; CEO and CFO of Whangarei District Council) and insurers where relevant, subject to express confidentiality undertakings (use only for the proceeding, no further disclosure), and that documents…
26 May 2015

GELDER v INNATE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1144

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1144
Court

High Court

The Court held that the non-party must comply with an order for particular discovery because the documents are relevant and discoverable; a confidential settlement does not by itself justify refusing discovery; use of discovered documents is governed by High Court Rule 8.30 and requires leave for uses outside the proceeding; accordingly discovery was ordered on negotiated protective terms, including non-use in competition and acknowledgement of confidentiality, with specific categories, inspection rights, timetable and cost allocation.
3 Dec 2008

OSMOSE NEW ZEALAND V WAKELING AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-7195

Citation

openlaw-a509561f_bb2b_4f0b_a925_ce3b3310568f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the operative cause of Osmose's failure to bring defamation claims within the two year period was the defendants' failure to make full and proper discovery; that cause was a reasonable cause under s 4(6B) Limitation Act 1950; no prejudice to the additional defendants was shown and the court's residual discretion favoured granting leave; consequently leave was granted to bring the defamation claim out of time and leave was granted to use Arch's discovered documents in the Fair Trading Act proceeding, with directions to amalgamate and fast-track the proceedings.

New Zealand Case Law

FUJIFILM BUSINESS INNOVATION NEW ZEALAND LTD v WHITTAKER [2022] NZHC 1760

POROWINI INVESTMENTS LIMITED v HAWTHORNE GEDDES ENGINEERS and ARCHITECTS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 524

GELDER v INNATE IMMUNOTHERAPEUTICS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 1144

OSMOSE NEW ZEALAND V WAKELING AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2005-404-7195