New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading particularity

Legal area

Court

2 Oct 2020

BODY CORPORATE 355492 v JOHN ROBERT CHESTNEY & ORS [2020] NZHC 2590

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2590
Court

High Court

The court granted the application in part: plaintiffs must file an amended statement of claim providing further particulars of (1) the damage caused or to be caused by the pleaded defects and the location of that damage and a general description of the remedial solution required (not necessarily repair for each individual defect), (2) economic loss particulars including remedial cost breakdown (investigation, design, remedial works), stigma, alternative accommodation and lost rental rates/periods, lost business income basis/period/amounts, moving/storage/cleaning costs per unit, and (3) parti…
5 Jun 2020

SMITH & STOKES v PRAIN [2020] NZHC 1236

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1236
Court

High Court

Claims in deceit against the third defendant and Cardno and the negligence claim against Cardno were struck out under r15.1 for failing to disclose a reasonably arguable cause of action and for lack of required particulars of dishonesty or negligent conduct; the pleadings could not be cured by amendment on the material before the Court; delay was inordinate, inexcusable and prejudicial; plaintiffs' application to lift the stay was dismissed.
30 Jan 2020

SHANNON NICOLE HARRIS v IAN JASON GRAY [2019] NZHC 36

Citation

SHANNON NICOLE HARRIS v IAN JASON GRAY [2019] NZHC 36
Court

High Court

Knowing assistance and deceit claims were struck out for failure to plead dishonesty with necessary particularity and absence of prima facie evidential foundation; knowing receipt claim defective in particulars but salvageable by amendment; summary judgment was refused because material factual disputes (whether father declared a trust over 10% and whether defendants had relevant knowledge when they took title) could not be resolved without a full hearing and evidence; defendants must plead bona fide purchaser/no notice if relied upon.
23 Jan 2019

RINTOUL GROUP LIMITED v ROBSON [2019] NZHC 21

Citation

[2019] NZAR 434
Court

High Court

The court held that the second amended statement of claim met the heightened pleading and evidential threshold necessary to sustain a misfeasance claim generally and refused to strike it out, but the settlement and release executed between Rintoul and the Far North District Council discharged the council and thus barred Rintoul's claims against Ms Robson in respect of the four cycleway contracts (application of the release rule); credible affidavit evidence (notably Mr DePereira) raised genuine factual conflicts about Ms Robson's intent such that summary judgment for the defendant was refused…
11 Apr 2017

CHATFIELD & CO LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2017] NZSC 48

Citation

[2017] NZSC 48
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the decision to deny discovery was a discretionary application of settled principles: the documents sought were not shown on the surviving pleaded cause of action to be relevant to whether the Commissioner considered art 25 of the double taxation agreement, so there was no basis to order discovery and no proper basis for an interlocutory appeal.
3 Jul 2013

SUISSE INTERNATIONAL LIMITED v MONK [2013] NZHC 1685

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1685
Court

High Court

The applications for particular discovery and for non‑party discovery were dismissed because the defendant's pleaded defence was insufficiently particularised to establish relevance and there were insufficient grounds to believe relevant undiscovered documents existed; further, many potentially relevant documents were not shown to be under the plaintiff's control (being held by third parties or subject to a lien). The plaintiff was ordered to meet photocopying costs on specified short terms pursuant to counsel's undertaking, and the third tranche of security for costs was ordered payable by 2…
21 Mar 2012

BAYCITY TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED V UTTINGER HC AK CIV 2006-404-7709

Citation

openlaw-e54bf5eb_5b06_41a2_be0c_392f8bed99ae.pdf
Court

High Court

DairySense's counterclaim failed to plead with sufficient particularity the identity of the primary infringer, the specific instances of alleged primary infringement, and the precise acts by which BayCity procured or induced that infringement; absent those pleaded particulars the applications for further discovery, answers to interrogatories and inspection (including disassembly) were not justified and were declined, with software inspection deferred pending agreement on scope and confidentiality.
31 Jan 2011

FAKIR HALAL DONNERS V TAYLOR PRESTON LIMITED HC WN CIV-2010-485-1530

Citation

openlaw-79d5458c_5f7b_4ecb_bd91_4267b91bb24f.pdf
Court

High Court

The court declined to strike out the entire statement of claim for abuse of process because the pleading defects were not of sufficient severity to meet the high strike‑out threshold; the second and third causes (ss16(a) and 16(b) Sale of Goods Act) and the seventh cause (as amended under the Fair Trading Act) were reasonably arguable and raised factual issues for trial and thus could not be struck out; the fourth cause (s17 Sale of Goods Act) was struck out because photographs did not amount to a physical sample required by s17; security for costs beyond the $20,000 already paid was declined…
17 Dec 2010

ERIN A LEIGH V THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL IN RESPECT OF THE MINISTRY OF ENVIRONMENT CA483/2009

Citation

openlaw-22f999b7_1c98_4a7f_9e9e_ff3a3818b740.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the Briefing Paper and Oral Statements were capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings and therefore the strikeout of those defamation pleadings could not stand; however Article 9 and s13 prevent pleading that the Minister's statements in Parliament amounted to a republication (such reliance would question parliamentary proceedings); preparatory materials and briefings were not extended absolute privilege beyond proceedings in the House; the negligent misstatement cause of action was struck out because there was insufficient proximity and policy reasons against imposing…
8 Oct 2010

SPECIALIZED BICYCLE COMPONENTS, INC V SHEPPARD INDUSTRIES LIMITED AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2010-404-5068

Citation

openlaw-3e83e3c5_10aa_442d_9e09_949687dc9c06.pdf
Court

High Court

Judge found there was a serious question to be tried on both copyright and contractual claims but significant doubts as to strength of Specialized's copyright case and the contractual claim was viable but not compelling; on balance of convenience the risk of injustice was marginally greater to Sheppard if restrained, therefore interim injunction was refused and defendants awarded costs on a 2B basis.