New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particularisation

Legal area

Court

10 Sept 2020

SANDILANDS v SIGNAL [2020] NZHC 2354

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2354
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff is resident abroad, on evidence appears impecunious, is self‑represented, and the claim is not obviously strong, it was just in all the circumstances to order security for costs of $15,000 to be paid into Court and to stay the proceeding pending payment; discovery and interrogatories sought by plaintiff were refused as inappropriate and illegitimate in part (seeking insurer information).
6 Oct 2010

PERRIAM V WILKES AND ORS HC AK CIV 2009-425-000284

Citation

openlaw-61ff5c44_2abe_40d9_b964_1cb477fbd92a.pdf
Court

High Court

The statement of claim is deficient for lack of particularisation and cannot be struck out in full at this interlocutory stage; given outstanding discovery and possibility that the plaintiff can particularise viable causes, the strike-out application is adjourned and plaintiff given opportunity to replead following discovery; case management directions and a telephone conference were ordered and costs reserved.
5 Jun 2007

CUTHBERT V HUMPHRIES& ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-7071

Citation

openlaw-c4e29fe4_3694_401a_827d_a8a2a28f4e34.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court allowed most of the proposed amendments because they concerned issues already live between the parties and were prompted by financial material recently produced; the amendments would not cause undue prejudice provided certain new allegations were properly particularised and the trial timetable was preserved; specific allegations lacking evidential support (77D(b) and 77D(d)) were disallowed, and the plaintiff may reapply if further discovery yields supporting material.

New Zealand Case Law

SANDILANDS v SIGNAL [2020] NZHC 2354

PERRIAM V WILKES AND ORS HC AK CIV 2009-425-000284

CUTHBERT V HUMPHRIES& ORS HC AK CIV-2003-404-7071