New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Agency for privilege purposes

Legal area

Court

9 Apr 2014

ROBERT & ORS v FOXTON EQUITIES LTD [2014] NZHC 726

Citation

[2014] NZHC 726
Court

High Court

The Court ordered particular discovery in narrowed terms for the three categories because the requested documents were relevant to issues in dispute (including the vendor's state of mind and cost/benefit valuation) and prima facie existed in defendant's control; it held TAL was an authorised agent for obtaining legal services so privilege extended to communications via TAL; most solicitor-client, litigation and settlement privilege claims were upheld on the basis that the communications were made for legal advice or for dominant litigation/settlement purposes, except limited parts of two True…
14 Jun 2011

BRANDLINES LIMITED V CENTRAL FORKLIFT GROUP LIMITED HC WN CIV-2008-485-2803

Citation

openlaw-b53c1db1_b737_49be_be2d_b77b165607c2.pdf
Court

High Court

Although the first plaintiff succeeded on the agency point, it failed to establish privilege over the overwhelming majority of its documents and therefore is liable for costs; the second plaintiff had measured success and is not liable. It is fair to apportion liability equally between the two defendants where both prosecuted privilege challenges against both plaintiffs. The first plaintiff must pay one half of the defendants' combined net costs and disbursements, resulting in a total payment of $3,608 to the defendants.