New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Electronic discovery

Legal area

Court

14 Sept 2023

TADD MANAGEMENT LIMITED v WEINE [2023] NZHC 2573

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2573
Court

High Court

The plaintiff demonstrated that the SLS disbursement funded an electronic document management service (scanning, coding, deduplication, text‑searchable processing, maintenance and storage) that was distinct from the work covered by scale steps 20, 21 and 33A; accordingly the Court allowed 2B costs for those steps and separately allowed the $5,292.71 SLS disbursement as reasonably necessary and reasonable in quantum.
1 Mar 2022

BATES v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2022] NZHC 336

Citation

[2022] NZHC 336
Court

High Court

Defendants (Auckland Council and O'Hagan) were entitled to recover 2B scale costs and specified disbursements; costs for joinder of third parties were recoverable from the plaintiff even where multiple third parties were joined in one pleading; second counsel certified for the trial and interlocutory hearing; expert fees and modest external e-discovery costs were recoverable as reasonably necessary; a 50% uplift under r14.6 was justified against the plaintiff for refusing reasonable Calderbank settlement offers (Council uplift from 22 Nov 2019; O'Hagan uplift from 10 Feb 2020); O'Hagan's trav…
7 Nov 2019

JONES v MAIHI [2019] NZHC 2907

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2907
Court

High Court

Costs were not to be reserved; in respect of the plaintiff's application for relief from electronic discovery costs were left where they fell, but the defendant was entirely successful on the further and better discovery application and the plaintiff's inadequate initial disclosure (25 documents rising to 207) warranted an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements allowed by the Registrar.
13 Mar 2015

AUCKLAND WATERFRONT DEVELOPMENT AGENCY LIMITED v MOBIL OIL NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2015] NZHC 470

Citation

(2015) 23 PRNZ 200
Court

High Court

Court allowed a modest award for the application for further particulars ($5,439); allowed a ten‑day Band C allocation for electronic discovery work by solicitors due to the exercise's scale ($29,400); awarded solicitors 3.5 days for attendance at experts' meetings but disallowed separate preparation allowance for those meetings ($10,290); granted uplifts under r 14.6(3)(a) of 15 days for preparation of briefs and 15 days for trial preparation but rejected further uplift under r 14.6(3)(b); expert witness disbursements were reduced by 30% as Mobil failed to prove full reasonableness, resultin…
20 Jun 2007

NEVILLE JAMES GIBSON V MINTER ELLISON RUDD WATTS CA CA202/05

Citation

openlaw-3e2d14ce_e815_4691_b772_99035786465a.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Applications for leave were refused because electronic discovery had been thoroughly addressed at trial and by affidavit, the proposed additional materials were speculative or lacked probative value or were late, and proposed amendments would expand the appeal without justification; respondent awarded costs.
13 Sept 2006

COMMERCE COMMISSION V TELECOM CORPORATION OF NEW ZEALAND LIMITED AND ANOR CA CA198/05

Citation

openlaw-c2795803_ff49_4401_b672_08bcbacb810b.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the High Court had jurisdiction to order cost‑shifting but Wild J erred by failing to expressly consider Telecom's failure to preserve accessible electronic records; because Telecom failed to preserve potentially relevant material when it knew litigation was likely, Telecom must bear the cost of the sample electronic discovery and the High Court order requiring 50/50 cost sharing was varied accordingly.
6 Mar 2006

BEVAN-SMITH V REED PUBLISHING (NZ) LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2003-404-3628

Citation

openlaw-a637ab87_41d5_43d7_9cd1_73a2a009a8d6.pdf
Court

High Court

The plaintiff failed to establish on evidence a sufficient basis to believe most of the additional documents exist or are in the defendants' control and/or to show their relevance such as to justify the intrusive orders sought; where the defendants agreed to make specific reasonable enquiries (eg obtain further Ingram QC opinions from Lovegroves and enquiries of Longacre) those steps must be taken and disclosed subject to privilege, but speculative or unsupported requests and requests protected by privilege or for access to defendants' computers are refused.
3 Mar 2006

BEVAN-SMITH V REED PUBLISHING (NZ) LIMITED HC AK CIV-2003-404-3628

Citation

openlaw-322272bc_9958_4bce_99e4_389b5c4b7a09.pdf
Court

High Court

The court refused broad orders for further and better discovery where the plaintiff failed to provide evidence or reasonable grounds to believe the defendants possessed the requested documents or where privilege applied; limited relief was granted obliging the defendants to search for and disclose additional Dr Ingram QC opinions and related correspondence and to obtain available sales records from Longacre, while declining orders for pre-sales orders, third‑party correspondence, access to personal computers/hard-drives, and most items sought in the defendants' cross-application.