29 Oct 2021
The respondent's first and second affidavits were misleading when assessed against the fuller third affidavit; that misleading reliance in opposing interrogatories amounted to improper conduct under r 14.6(4)(a); therefore the interlocutory 2B costs order should be quashed under r 14.8(2) and replaced with an order for indemnity costs and disbursements in the amount sought by the applicants.
22 Dec 2020
The interrogatories (numbers 1–10 and 12–15) were relevant to matters pleaded, not unduly wide or oppressive, and therefore the defendant was ordered to answer them fully and verify the answers by affidavit within five working days; costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a 2B basis.
5 Mar 2015
The Court struck out NZBORA claims against the first, third and fourth defendants because Baigent remedies lie against the State/Crown; NZBORA claim may proceed only against the Crown (second defendant) subject to further particulars of unreasonableness and bad faith. The privacy cause of action was struck out against the first, second and fourth defendants for failure to meet the Hosking threshold, but the privacy claim against the third defendant (liquidator) survived subject to further particulars of each disclosure. All claims in respect of intrusion upon seclusion were struck out for fai…
27 Aug 2014
All of the plaintiff's claims were dismissed for failure to prove essential particulars and damages on the balance of probabilities; the variation to the PSA did not convert the plaintiff into sole proprietor in law; the first defendant is entitled under the PSA (as varied) to require sale of the property and may bring applications to implement that remedy; defendants awarded costs on a 2B basis.
24 Aug 2012
The Court recognises a civil tort of intrusion upon seclusion in New Zealand law. To succeed a plaintiff must prove an intentional and unauthorised intrusion into seclusion (intimate personal activity, space or affairs), infringement of a reasonable expectation of privacy and that the intrusion is highly offensive to a reasonable person. Applying those elements, the defendant unlawfully videoed the plaintiff showering and is liable; damages are to be assessed and identifying particulars of the plaintiff are suppressed.