New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Documentary evidence

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2023

SAFARI CONSTRUCTION (2005) LIMITED v CONCEPT BUILDERS QUEENSTOWN LIMITED (ADMISSIBILITY) [2023] NZHC 2380

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2380
Court

High Court

The Court provisionally admitted the D Taylor affidavit and annexures to the extent they are relevant to demonstrating a good arguable case and where documents originated from the respondents, but excluded identified opinion/inference and other inadmissible content; respondents were granted the right to file an affidavit in reply and the weight of the material remains subject to challenge and cross-examination.
18 Sept 2019

FOX MORTIMER TRUSTEE COMPANY LTD v MGH TRAH LTD [2019] NZHC 2359

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2359
Court

High Court

Given the temporal proximity of the Harrisons communications to the sale agreement and the absence of an unequivocal affidavit denying relevance, the plans and the 14 July 2018 invoices may be relevant to whether the defendants intended to subdivide Lot 1 and must be discovered if they still exist; plans provided to Harcourts may likewise be relevant to test whether the Harrisons plans related to Lot 4 or Lot 1; defendants ordered to file an affidavit within 14 days listing and providing the documents where copies exist.
1 Aug 2018

CT (PAKISTAN) v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2018] NZHC 1946

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1946
Court

High Court

The Tribunal's comprehensive and emphatic adverse credibility findings, supported by inconsistencies, fabricated or unexplained documents, and lack of independent probative evidence, defeated the applicant's claim such that no real prospect of success remained and no question of law of sufficient public importance was identified; permission to appeal and judicial review is therefore properly declined.
14 Nov 2016

STEEL v SPENCE CONSULTANTS LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2723

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2723
Court

High Court

The judge ruled that the identified documents were inadmissible as hearsay or expert opinion in the absence of witness testimony and ordered their deletion from the agreed bundle, while reserving the right to revisit admissibility when Ms Steel or other relevant witnesses give evidence.
2 Sept 2016

BANNOCK, BANNOCK AND OXFORD STREET TRUSTEES (2010) LIMITED AND THE OTHER PLAINTIFFS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1 v MONACO MANAGEMENT LIMITED [2016] NZHC 2088 [1 September 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2088
Court

High Court

Because the contested issues turn largely on legal interpretation and documentary evidence rather than disputed witness credibility, and briefs of evidence had been exchanged, the fundamental right of plaintiffs to be present throughout the hearing was not displaced; accordingly the defendants' application to exclude the plaintiffs was declined, with the limited exception of one non‑party witness (Mr Gepp).
24 May 2016

AP v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2016] NZHC 1085

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1085
Court

High Court

The Tribunal properly assessed and weighed the evidence and documents on independent bases, correctly treated the applicant's challenge as factual rather than legal, and there was no reasonably arguable error of law or reviewable error; accordingly leave under s245 and leave for judicial review under s249 were not granted and the applications were dismissed.
28 May 2009

CARL YUNG GEMS LIMITED V LEADING DESIGN JEWELLERY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV-2007-404-2545

Citation

openlaw-6b554c3f_a8b0_42e1_842c_fc4e26a53f2a.pdf
Court

High Court

The application was declined because Leading Design failed to establish grounds for the belief that separate customs importation and clearance documents exist for each individual confirmed order that would record the weight of those orders, and failed to show the relevance and necessity of the broad discovery sought; accordingly broad discovery was not justified but leave was granted to pursue narrow targeted measures (specific application or interrogatories).
27 Feb 2009

THE OAKS LAW CENTRE SOLICITORS NOMINEE COMPANY LIMITED V PATRICK JOSEPH MCCORMICK AND ANOR HC AK CIV2008-404-423

Citation

openlaw-df396dd3_9d81_4da9_8621_5e302e6fb4d0.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff's documentary evidence established a prima facie entitlement to enforce the guarantees and shifted the evidential onus to the defendant; the defendant's assertions of a limited guarantee and of indemnities were unsupported, implausible and not genuinely arguable, so there was no real defence and summary judgment was proper.
4 Mar 2008

LOMBARD FINANCE & INVESTMENTS LIMITED V NISBET HC WN CIV 2006-485-2836

Citation

openlaw-c030aad2_43da_4287_b75f_a7c8b135fa58.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff had complied with the court's prior directions by delivering the expert's signed brief and the document bundle and because discovery is generally inappropriate in fast‑track summary judgment proceedings, the defendant's broad discovery application was unjustified and must be dismissed.