New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Electronic disclosure

Legal area

Court

8 Oct 2014

BANICEVICH v AMP SERVICES (NZ) LTD [2014] NZHC 2477

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2477
Court

High Court

Court ordered targeted further discovery and specified timelines: defendants to produce defined internal documents relating to payments, reconcilations, banking procedures and risk allowance policy and communications to AXA by 15 Oct 2014; plaintiff to produce specified insurance policy documents (including AIA), full affidavit of documents complying with r 8.15 disclosing financial records for Sept 2010–Sept 2013 and to provide electronic/hard copies; plaintiff must file a supplementary affidavit detailing steps taken to locate electronic copies and identify storage devices used Nov 2010–Dec…
18 Aug 2009

TODD POHOKURA LIMITED V SHELL EXPLORATION NZ LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-1600

Citation

openlaw-6beadc82_a8b9_41fa_9ab0_02dbae5da721.pdf
Court

High Court

Discovery ordered only for printouts or projections from the economic model and for the electronic model itself insofar as they project Pohokura production at levels other than 70 PJ/a; electronic discovery is confined to records currently available and reproducible without substantial expense and subject to confidentiality protections; Shell must answer interrogatories and provide further particulars by 21 August 2009.
22 May 2009

AVOWAL ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEYS LIMITED AND ORS V THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-007264

Citation

openlaw-c9698512_92e9_4506_a3b5_a3ed7f44304d.pdf
Court

High Court

The judgment is recalled and amended to require that ATO officers may review the electronic information in New Zealand only after a senior ATO officer swears and files an affidavit addressing the matters identified at [42]; that affidavit must be served on the parties; the Commissioner may then make the electronic information available to ATO officers for review; copying and removal to Australia is permitted after review; and the review process must preserve and address claims of privilege.
5 Mar 2007

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU HC AK CIV 2006-404-3305

Citation

openlaw-4535d042_68cd_4e97_8a25_1beafc57341a.pdf
Court

High Court

The District Court's oral order was invalid for breach of natural justice because the Crown was not afforded an opportunity to be heard; substantively, s42(1)(b) of the Privacy Act requires that a "copy" be provided in a form that is accessible and useable by the particular defendant, which in many cases will require paper copies; the s42(2)(a) exception for "impair efficient administration" can justify electronic-only disclosure but the Crown must justify that exception through reasons and, if contested, by applying to the court with evidence; electronic delivery is not automatically suffici…

New Zealand Case Law

BANICEVICH v AMP SERVICES (NZ) LTD [2014] NZHC 2477

TODD POHOKURA LIMITED V SHELL EXPLORATION NZ LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2006-485-1600

AVOWAL ADMINISTRATIVE ATTORNEYS LIMITED AND ORS V THE DISTRICT COURT AT NORTH SHORE AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-007264

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE V DISTRICT COURT AT MANUKAU HC AK CIV 2006-404-3305