New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery/inspection

Legal area

Court

26 Sept 2018

WAIMEA NURSERIES v DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZHC 2518

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2518
Court

High Court

Because no discovery orders were made, a full step 21 inspection allowance was not appropriate; however the applicants incurred discrete, payable legal work reviewing a large volume of affidavit material so a 0.5 day category A allowance ($1,650) was awarded by analogy to step 21. For the extension application the memorandum merited 0.4 days under step 11 and the telephone appearance 0.3 days under step 13, totalling 0.7 days ($2,310). The larger claimed amounts were excessive and declined.
11 Jun 2009

NORTHERN CLINIC MEDICAL & SURGICAL CENTRE LIMITED V KINGSTON AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-000968

Citation

openlaw-ad856777_6863_4f3a_97d1_3e7790b62be8.pdf
Court

High Court

The sixth defendant was awarded costs and disbursements largely as claimed: costs assessed at scale 2B, inspection time limited to two days but only for the plaintiff's disclosed documents (time spent inspecting other parties' documents disallowed), the expert fee of $4,617.46 was recoverable as a necessary and reasonable disbursement under r40H(2) despite not directly contributing to the summary judgment, photocopying recoverable only to the extent it related to the plaintiff's documents and not for other parties' documents, memoranda prepared by others are not claimable, and the plaintiff's…
9 Jun 2009

RM GIBSON AND ANOR V RJ CURTIS HC WN CIV 2007-485-907

Citation

openlaw-461f1af5_3877_4769_add9_9dae36e1264a.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiffs and defendant had effectively equal success on the interlocutory application, the plaintiffs acted reasonably in seeking a court determination given the contractual confidentiality and potential serious consequences of breach, and the defendant's offer of limited inspection did not render the plaintiffs' application unreasonable, the proper exercise of discretion is that costs should lie where they fall; therefore the defendant's application for costs is dismissed.
21 May 2009

TRANSACTOR TECHNOLOGIES LTD & ANOR V EVOLUTION E-BUSINESS LTD & ANOR HC AK CIV-2008-404-008469

Citation

openlaw-58acb47d_a981_4570_8617_703edb96e69d.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held the settlement between Transactor and Evolution was not sufficiently relevant to justify breaching confidentiality and made the Tomlin order; MarketSmart's application to discharge the search order failed because no mala fides, material non-disclosure or special circumstances were shown; Transactor was entitled to inspect relevant non-privileged documents seized under the search order and to access MarketSmart's CIS source code because PwC required assistance from Transactor staff to assess alleged incorporation of Thor; MarketSmart was ordered to file further affidavits comply…
8 Apr 2009

INVERNESS MEDICAL INNOVATIONS, INC AND ANOR V MDS DIAGNOSTICS LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-748

Citation

openlaw-b44502ba_9716_4ac6_8019_7e8ca7c9edc2.pdf
Court

High Court

The adjournment was refused because defendants had engaged in repeated delaying conduct (multiple changes of solicitors, late access to files, reliance on parallel Australian proceedings as a pretext), their asserted need for more preparation was unjustified given competent counsel could prepare within the remaining time, and the plaintiff's right to its day in court outweighed the defendants' convenience; indemnity costs and debarment conditions were warranted to prevent further delay.
16 Nov 2005

WILLIAMS V JONES AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2003-404-006565

Citation

openlaw-47c563c6_3376_4f74_925e_65f94902c614.pdf
Court

High Court

Because an active SFO prosecution arising from the same facts had been commenced and the information and documents sought were plainly connected to that prosecution, the defendants' claim to privilege against self-incrimination was properly made and must be upheld; accordingly the defendants were not required to answer Priestley J's questions nor to produce the documents in respect of which privilege was claimed. Separately, the Court will vary the freezing order to permit a limited specified sum for legal costs while requiring an affidavit of total amounts held, balancing defendants' access…

New Zealand Case Law

WAIMEA NURSERIES v DIRECTOR-GENERAL FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZHC 2518

NORTHERN CLINIC MEDICAL & SURGICAL CENTRE LIMITED V KINGSTON AND ORS HC AK CIV 2006-404-000968

RM GIBSON AND ANOR V RJ CURTIS HC WN CIV 2007-485-907

TRANSACTOR TECHNOLOGIES LTD & ANOR V EVOLUTION E-BUSINESS LTD & ANOR HC AK CIV-2008-404-008469

INVERNESS MEDICAL INNOVATIONS, INC AND ANOR V MDS DIAGNOSTICS LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-748

WILLIAMS V JONES AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2003-404-006565