New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Without prejudice communications

Legal area

Court

9 Aug 2023

AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v CNZ (AUCKLAND) LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2023] NZHC 2104

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2104
Court

High Court

The Court held that AIG must contribute to the reasonable costs of non-party Liggins because they were non-parties who reasonably engaged in the application process, but full indemnity was not justified; a 50% contribution of Liggins' claimed costs was fair ($5,307.25). The question whether AIG may recover or pass those costs to the defendants is contingent on the substantive outcome and is reserved for determination at the conclusion of the substantive claim.
7 Mar 2023

CHRISTIAN v BAIN [2023] NZHC 424

Citation

[2023] NZHC 424
Court

High Court

Costs follow the event: defendant Bain is awarded scale costs for the substantive proceeding with specified amendments to the schedule, disbursements of $9,068, and a 25% uplift on specified trial preparation steps (not the 50% claimed); interlocutory costs for the three linked applications are awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of $13,384; costs are not reserved pending appeal and reductions under r14.7 are not warranted on the facts.
22 Dec 2022

Re HARDER [2022] NZHC 3615

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3615
Court

High Court

Applicant may access the two judgments on the High Court file; no transcript exists; access to other documents, particularly those claimed to be privileged, is deferred pending clarification of purpose, confirmation of applicant's authority, notification of other interested parties and a two-hour hearing to determine privilege, redactions and scope of disclosure.
18 Oct 2022

COOKE v BUTLER [2022] NZHC 2687

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2687
Court

High Court

The Court granted targeted discovery limited to documents genuinely relevant to the pleaded issues and proportional to the litigation. It ordered discovery of all documents concerning the $100,000 advance to Andrew (2007) including accounting treatment and communications, required disclosure of trustees' advice and communications about calling up the $100,000 debt (when litigation was not yet inevitable), and limited any disclosure of privileged material under the joint interest exception to documents created before the joint interest ended (concluded to subsist until late 2020/around 10 Dece…
27 Jul 2022

LAWTON v STOCK [2022] NZCA 339

Citation

[2022] NZCA 339
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was declined because no question of law capable of bona fide, serious argument was established; the letter repeating only the offeror's terms was admissible on the issue of costs as a Calderbank offer or, alternatively, admissible under the Employment Court's equity and good conscience jurisdiction; an objection premised on 'jointly owned privilege' failed where the letter did not disclose the opponent's without prejudice statements.
18 Feb 2020

TEMPEST LITIGATION FUNDERS LTD v KAMAL [2020] NZHC 193

Citation

[2020] NZHC 193
Court

High Court

Access was denied because, on balance, pre-hearing protection of confidentiality and the respondent's right to defend allegations without unnecessary scrutiny outweighed the applicants' private interests in accessing the originating application; the applicants provided insufficient particularised reasons to overcome confidentiality concerns and the principle of open justice carried less weight given the private purpose of the requests.
13 Dec 2018

MATSUOKA v POLLAK [2018] NZHC 3292

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3292
Court

High Court

The preservation order's protective purpose ended with settlement of the underlying Employment Court proceedings; the defendant as custodian was entitled to make inquiries of the owners and to destroy the memory stick when owners indicated they did not want it retained; the originating contempt application was frivolous and constituted an abuse of process given the absence of prejudice, availability of source data, and the context of repeated collateral litigation by the applicant, therefore strike out was appropriate.
3 Sept 2018

FLANAGHAN v HELMORE BOWRON & SCOTT [2018] NZHC 2302

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2302
Court

High Court

The plaintiff was overall the successful party because breach and causation were established for key losses, but significant parts of his pleaded case lacked merit and his conduct (notably inflating the claim and pursuing a remote tax indemnity and unnecessary expert attendance) unjustifiably increased costs; balancing success and misconduct, the appropriate exercise of discretion is that costs lie where they fall.
12 Jun 2018

LHL LEASING SOLUTIONS LTD v PINTO LTD [2018] NZHC 1387

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1387
Court

High Court

The lease did not operate so as to impose clause 10 liquidated damages on Pinto because clause 1 (absence of a signed Hirer) limited the former lessee's obligations to those specified and the novation only required Pinto to assume those obligations; further, Pinto did not 'fail' to deliver up equipment because the parties effected mutual arrangements and Pinto facilitated recovery, so liquidated damages under clause 10 were not payable.
6 Oct 2017

Body Corporate 199883 v Auckland Council [2017] NZHC 2455

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2455
Court

High Court

The Council was the successful party on the interlocutory application insofar as it obtained an order requiring a more explicit statement of claim and maintained privilege over disputed documents; however that success was partial and the court exercised its discretion under r 14.7 to reduce a category 2B costs award by 30%, and separately awarded costs for the without prejudice issue with adjusted time allowances.