New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Implied undertaking

Legal area

Court

25 Jun 2021

TAYLOR v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 1546

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1546
Court

High Court

Leave was required because of the common law implied undertaking and High Court Rules restricting use of discovered material; applying a balancing exercise the Court concluded the seven quoted passages did not disclose the sensitive prison layout/CCTV information underlying the confidentiality order and that open justice and freedom of expression outweighed the risk to the integrity of discovery, therefore granting leave to publish those passages.
8 Aug 2016

BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED AND STEPHEN DANIEL COOMEY AS TRUSTEES OF BUSHLINE TRUST ONE BUSHLINE TRUSTEES LIMITED AND SHARON LOUISE COOMEY AS TRUSTEES OF BUSHLINE TRUST TWO v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1818

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1818
Court

High Court

The court declined (effectively by withdrawal) the plaintiffs' split trial application and set an amended timetable; ordered ANZ to produce all versions of the Interest Rate SWAPs brochure/presentation used or edited by Mr Esquilant in 2007-2008; ordered ANZ to produce all documents relating to general client assessment and suitability for SWAPs between 2005 and 2013; ordered ANZ to provide an affidavit by Ms Hedley or another appropriate employee outlining steps taken to amend disclosures and distribute advisers' statements; refused a general release of the implied undertaking but endorsed a…
6 Apr 2016

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2016] NZHC 576

Citation

[2016] NZHC 576
Court

High Court

The application to redact Judgment No 8 was dismissed: the open justice principle outweighed the defendant's confidentiality claims because no exceptional adverse consequences were established and the information in the judgment was relevant to public interest in pursuing the court‑ordered account; the fourth affidavit remains confidential on the court file but is available to the plaintiff's litigation team (including Mr Cooper); two clerical errors in Judgment No 8 are corrected under the slip rule and Judgment No 8 will be withdrawn and reissued with corrections; interim restrictions on pu…
29 Apr 2013

HALLY LABELS LIMITED V KEVIN POWELL HC CHCH CIV-2011-409-000867

Citation

openlaw-2b4e86a1_a888_4793_9473_5c5f2422ee06.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to use the documents was refused. The court held that r 8.30(4) prohibits collateral use absent an exception; party consent to use is effective and, if consent is given, no further court leave is required. If consent cannot be obtained, the applicant must bring a formal interlocutory application on notice in the proceeding in which discovery occurred, serving the producing parties, and satisfy the court that special circumstances justify discharge of the restriction.
12 Apr 2011

COLLEEN MARGARET JOYCE RICHMOND V RAJU RAJU HC AK CIV 2009-404-007078

Citation

openlaw-fd52b6b2_f5c4_4e3f_bef8_d2f4beb76959.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court found there was proper cause to enlarge the scope of discovery to include specified files (including those disclosed in the Kumari/Nair proceeding that had not already been produced) because they could reveal a system or pattern relevant to the plaintiff's claims; the Court also concluded it was appropriate to release Mr C W Bright from any undertaking arising from discovery in the Kumari/Nair proceeding to permit use of those documents in this proceeding; measures to mitigate oppression (identifying file names and general descriptions) were sufficient.
21 Feb 2011

OCEANIC HOLDINGS (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED V AIR TRANSPORT WORLD FREIGHT LIMITED HC AK CIV-2008-404-000751

Citation

openlaw-d1774294_0eea_49e9_a0e0_9e05f78ec95c.pdf
Court

High Court

The unredacted settlement agreement is relevant and discoverable because it may contain a release of the Queensland defendants which could discharge the defendant if the defendant is held to be a joint tortfeasor; accordingly the plaintiff's claim to confidentiality as to the unredacted deed is set aside limitedly for inspection by the defendant and its counsel only. Documents discovered by the Queensland defendants are within the plaintiff's control and the implied undertaking against collateral use is released to permit their use in this proceeding; plaintiff must file an affidavit detailin…
18 Aug 2010

HUNTER GRAIN LIMITED AND ANOR V RICHARD WILLIAM PRICE AND ORS HC TAU CIV-2008-470-192

Citation

openlaw-45ca0a0e_989d_48b7_b0e8_e3f81c3d324d.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave was granted because the disclosed documents relate to the same events and issues as the existing proceedings, Toepfer could have been joined earlier, no abuse of process was established, and permitting investigatory use and correspondence is a proportionate exercise of the court's discretion in the interests of justice.
21 Apr 2005

WILSON V WHITE & ORS CA CA107/03

Citation

openlaw-ce329049_90fe_419e_b7d1_aaff3152f3d4.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the documents were obtained in the context of discovery and were subject to an implied undertaking limiting use; that the undertaking had not been discharged before Dr Wilson provided the documents to the College because they had not been referred to in open court at that time and no court permission had been sought; disclosure to the College was collateral to the litigation and breached the undertaking, constituting contempt; the appeal was dismissed.