New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Particularity of pleadings

Legal area

Court

8 Nov 2022

C v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 2923

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2923
Court

High Court

The fifth amended statement of claim was struck out because it failed to comply with pleading rules: it was prolix and evidential, lacked required particularity for defamation, misfeasance and negligence, ignored prior judicial directions to streamline, and the defamation cause was time-barred; after multiple amendment opportunities the pleading disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action and strike out was justified.
28 May 2021

DOVEY AVIATION CONSULTING LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 1224

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1224
Court

High Court

Maintain costs at category 2 (2B); apply band C to the statement of claim and to two of three notices to answer interrogatories (resulting in nine days for interrogatory work with allocation of four days to NZDF and five days to WoW); apply band B to the remaining interlocutory steps (including one notice to answer interrogatories and notice to give particulars); disallow claimed costs for an unfiled AVL application; refuse uplift (25%) on scale costs; award disbursements as agreed; order costs joint and several subject to NZDF and WoW agreeing severally allocated portions.
29 Aug 2018

CLEMENTS v THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND [2018] NZHC 2244

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2244
Court

High Court

The statement of claim was struck out because it disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action, was non-justiciable insofar as it sought to convert complex technical and policy questions into criminal and judicial-review causes without identifying discrete decisions or decision-makers, impermissibly attempted to litigate criminal matters in civil proceedings, contained prolix and irrelevant allegations and sought relief beyond the Court's power, and was likely to cause prejudice and delay.
24 Mar 2010

THE BABY HAMMOCK CO LTD V AJ PARK LAW HC AK CIV-2008-404-3581

Citation

openlaw-34b95a37_4549_42e3_8875_d06f027c7a0f.pdf
Court

High Court

Applications dismissed because BHC failed to particularise or provide any evidence supporting its allegation of unauthorized disclosure, the requested categories were overly broad and commercially sensitive, many documents were subject to valid legal professional privilege and there was no prima facie dishonesty to displace that privilege, and the non-party discovery was not necessary to BHC's pleaded claims.
14 Jul 2009

LEIGH V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2008-485-2315

Citation

openlaw-62fb300d_d77f_4726_97de_2c4bf6ff51da.pdf
Court

High Court

The Briefing Paper, read in context and confined to factual reporting, was not capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded and those allegations are struck out; Article 9 BR1688 prevents pleading that materially different words used by a Minister in Parliament constitute a republication of what was told to the Minister; the oral statements attributed to the deputy secretary (if pleaded with sufficient particularity) remain capable of defamatory meanings except the 'overly emotional' meaning; the negligent misstatement cause fails for lack of proximity and adverse policy considerations…
3 Feb 2006

NJ PHILLIPS PTY LTD V FORLONG & MAISEY LTD & ANOR HC HAM CIV 2005-419-565

Citation

openlaw-c638ca42_2e73_4d82_9612_d63c67515233.pdf
Court

High Court

Counsel's submissions before the Assistant Commissioner do not constitute representations by the plaintiff capable of founding estoppel by representation; the Gillette plea as pleaded is not a standalone defence to infringement and must be struck out in favour of revocation remedies; pleading 'common general knowledge' as a separate ground of lack of novelty is impermissible under s41(1)(e) and r725ZI and must be struck out; words asserting 'the common general knowledge in the art in New Zealand' are beyond s41(1)(f) and must be removed; paragraph 19.4(c) may stand only if particulars of docu…

New Zealand Case Law

C v ACCIDENT COMPENSATION CORPORATION [2022] NZHC 2923

DOVEY AVIATION CONSULTING LIMITED v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND [2021] NZHC 1224

CLEMENTS v THE QUEEN OF ENGLAND [2018] NZHC 2244

THE BABY HAMMOCK CO LTD V AJ PARK LAW HC AK CIV-2008-404-3581

LEIGH V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2008-485-2315

NJ PHILLIPS PTY LTD V FORLONG & MAISEY LTD & ANOR HC HAM CIV 2005-419-565