New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Discovery and particulars

Legal area

Court

6 Sept 2021

THE GAMA FOUNDATION v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2021] NZHC 2321

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2321
Court

High Court

The court held the applicant may properly challenge MSD's alleged policy or practice without particulars of specific files it does not possess; however, where the statement of claim expressly alleges failures in 'certain cases' the respondents are entitled to know which cases are relied on and tailored discovery by the respondents should occur before the applicant must provide particulars of specific prosecution decisions; accordingly the respondents' request for particulars is partially refused and the court made case management directions requiring filing of a defence, a period for discussi…
31 Jan 2020

The Minister of Education v James Hardie New Zealand [2020] NZHC 47

Citation

[2020] NZHC 47
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave only to limited knowledge allegations that were consistent with the defects already pleaded (specific tin-related preservative under-treatment particulars at specified dates and two other particulars) but denied amendments that would introduce new defect allegations concerning azole-based preservative under-treatment and incompatibility with galvanised nails because those matters were not fairly captured by Schedule 2, were newly advanced late in the proceedings, and would cause real and significant prejudice by requiring substantial new expert testing and preparation…
10 Oct 2018

HULJICH v HULJICH & ORS [2018] NZHC 2637

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2637
Court

High Court

Relief from the sanction was granted because the non-compliance with the filing requirement was a technical oversight, the filing requirement was unorthodox, defendants suffered no prejudice and striking out would be disproportionate; rescission or recall of the order striking out Part B was refused because the order was made with argument, the belated provision of particulars did not constitute a change of circumstances under r 7.49 and indicated deliberate non-compliance, so no indulgence was warranted.
31 Jul 2017

NORTH EASTERN INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND HERITAGE LAND LIMITED v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 1557

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1557
Court

High Court

Housing New Zealand was properly joined as a respondent because it has a genuine interest and its rights will be affected by the judicial review; however, orders for discovery and particulars against Housing New Zealand were declined because no pleaded allegation of impropriety or demonstrated relevance justified those pretrial disclosure orders, with leave reserved to renew after Housing New Zealand produces evidence.
25 Oct 2012

CONSOLIDATED ALLOYS (NZ) LTD V EDGING SYSTEMS (NZ) LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-003021

Citation

openlaw-acb44d7e_60a3_4594_b9be_a566c64b7e1f.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to serve interrogatories was granted only in respect of questions that directly related to whether the second defendant caused or was responsible for the alleged unlawful acts (interrogatories 5(a)–(h) and 5(o)), with limited wording amendments, because the plaintiff reasonably expected a brief from the second defendant and the questions sought direct facts not oppressive investigation; other interrogatories were refused as oppressive, irrelevant or seeking detailed discovery; the court will accept admissible evidence that a 'will say' statement existed without admitting its contents si…
13 Jun 2011

VULCAN STEEL LTD V MCDERMOTT HC AK CIV-2010-404-003254

Citation

openlaw-ca2f802c_e276_4ee2_aded_9400f5f2ac5b.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was dismissed because there is a triable issue as to whether the second defendant received or used the plaintiff's confidential information and the information imbalance means discovery is necessary; the strike out application was refused but the plaintiff must particularise defective pleadings and is ordered to provide discovery and amended statement of claim within set timeframes.
23 Dec 2008

BODY CORPORATE 182040 & ORS COLERIDGE LIMITED & ORS HC AK CIV 2002-404-1665

Citation

openlaw-c42822e5_9dd2_484c_9d2f_eda9d4307cc0.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court refused to strike out the proceeding. It held the Body Corporate had authority via the owners' committee and subsequent ratification by many owners via general meetings and levy payments, but found a sufficient basis to question authority of specific individual owners and required written confirmation for identified units. The Court permitted removal and addition/substitution of multiple second plaintiffs subject to reservation of defendants' rights to seek costs and to apply to strike out new plaintiffs. The Court ordered further particulars identifying units affected by specific d…
22 Nov 2007

SCOTT V SCOTT & MCNEILLY (AS TRUSTEES) AND ANOR HC TAU CIV 2004-470-094

Citation

openlaw-5f0ac3e2_ece6_4862_a3db_c1b567bd1f6e.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to file the proposed amendments is granted because allowing the amendments best serves the interests of justice by enabling all controversial matters between family members and trustees to be determined at the single upcoming trial; the potential prejudice to defendants is not significant and can be managed by urgent compliance with particulars and discovery directions.