New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery and interrogatories

Legal area

Court

27 Oct 2017

WOOLF v KAYE & Ors [2017] NZHC 2651

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2651
Court

High Court

Court concluded there was not credible evidence that the plaintiff was unable to meet an award of costs given the 2015 inheritance and the undertaking regarding the estate; alternatively, even if threshold met, it would not be just to order security because the plaintiff's claim is arguable and the public interest in access to the courts outweighs the defendant's limited risk, therefore the application for security for costs was declined.
22 Feb 2017

YE v DENG & ANOR [2017] NZHC 227

Citation

[2017] NZHC 227
Court

High Court

The court declined to strike out or grant summary judgment because the pleaded facts, taken at face value, were not so untenable as to preclude success and factual disputes required trial; the property proceeding was stayed pending resolution of the recall application because undertakings eliminated real prejudice and staying promoted efficiency and avoided duplication; discovery was refused while the stay remains in force.
29 Nov 2016

WARD EQUIPMENT LIMITED AND ANOR v PRESTON AND ORS [2016] NZHC 2859

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2859
Court

High Court

Heath J exercised discretion under r 10.4 and ordered a separate one-day trial of Mevon's first counterclaim on 13 February 2017 because commercial urgency and potential prejudice from continued trading in New Zealand justified immediate determination, conditional on both parties agreeing to fast-track any appeal; outstanding discovery and interrogatory requests were dismissed as resolved or unnecessary for that discrete issue.
25 Oct 2016

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v QIAN DUODUO LTD [2016] NZHC 2544

Citation

(2016) 23 PRNZ 386
Court

High Court

Leave to commence these AML/CFT civil penalty proceedings by originating application was refused because the legislative scheme and s72(2)(b) point to the standard civil procedure, the subject matter is novel, the notices of application lacked the detail expected of a statement of claim given the evaluative elements and large potential penalties, and the interests of justice therefore favour the standard procedure.
1 Oct 2015

E-TRANS INTERNATIONAL FINANCE LTD v KIWIBANK LTD [2015] NZHC 2394

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2394
Court

High Court

The Court concluded the proceeding was not ripe for the November 2015 hearing and vacated that hearing, refusing to split the trial; it fixed the full hearing for 3–11 February 2016 (with a further week available 22 February 2016), imposed a strict timetable for pleadings, interrogatories, discovery (including specific orders for Category 6 and reserved matters for Category 4 and 8), evidence (factual and expert briefs) and submissions, granted leave limitedly where specified, appointed a lay member, and reserved costs — these directions were necessary to ensure a fair and ready trial and to…
3 Mar 2015

AAR v PFN [2015] NZHC 330

Citation

[2015] NZHC 330
Court

High Court

The Court held that a Family Court Judge lawfully may determine Part 4 interlocutory applications at a judicial conference; on the facts the Judge was entitled to dismiss the discovery and interrogatory applications; the respondent was entitled to costs both as beneficiary and as administrator; beneficiary costs of $10,458 are to be deducted from the appellant's distribution and administrator costs of $9,065 are to be paid out of the estate generally, with assessment conducted by reference to the High Court Rules scale.
23 Dec 2014

TAYLOR v KEY [2014] NZHC 3409

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3409
Court

High Court

Amendments asserting entirely new grounds (here, allegations of corrupt practice involving the candidate) presented after the 28‑day limit in s 231(1) are not permitted; however, particulars of conduct (tweets and availability of a Facebook video) that particularise pre‑existing allegations of unlawful endorsements pleaded as illegal practices may be added. An express pleading that the Court may make a special report to the Speaker is permitted. Discovery and interrogatories directed to establishing candidate knowledge are premature and are to be adjourned until after the Court determines in…
10 Jun 2014

AAR v PFN [2014] NZHC 1295

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1295
Court

High Court

A Family Court judge is entitled to use the wide discretionary powers conferred by rr 175 and 175D of the Family Courts Rules to determine interlocutory discovery and interrogatories applications at a judicial conference where doing so is consistent with the purpose of the Rules; on the facts the judge did not err in refusing further discovery because the respondent had made reasonable disclosure and further discovery would be disproportionate to the value remaining in dispute in the estate.
28 Mar 2014

SLATER v BLOMFIELD [2014] NZHC 612

Citation

(2014) 21 PRNZ 743
Court

High Court

Because s 72 District Courts Act is silent on any time limit, r 20.4(3)(b) permits the High Court to grant special leave and exercise a discretionary extension of time; applying the established factors (reason for delay, length, prejudice, conduct, merits and public importance) the appellant's short delay and explanations, lack of substantive prejudice and arguable appeal on whether bloggers fall within s 68 justify granting an extension to 3 April 2014 and listing the substantive appeal for hearing.
24 Oct 2012

CORBANS VITICULTURE LIMITED V WAIHOPAI VALLEY MANAGEMENT LIMITED HC BLE CIV-2010-406-000046

Citation

openlaw-d7d8cda1_60a8_4e34_b345_70a5dfb9cbe0.pdf
Court

High Court

Court found credible evidence of winding down (staff and stock reductions, physical observations) and absence of adequate financial disclosure justified an inference plaintiff likely unable to meet adverse costs; accordingly r5.45 threshold met and it was just to order staged security for costs in specified sums; discovery orders were made and leave to bring summary judgment out of time was refused because of factual disputes and upcoming trial timetable.