New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleading sufficiency

Legal area

Court

3 Jun 2022

COWAN v COWAN [2022] NZHC 1322

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1322
Court

High Court

The court held that the tikanga expert evidence of Mr Piripi is admissible and relevant to the plaintiffs' pleaded damages because the statement of claim specifically alleges cultural loss (para 33(h) regarding Māori customary rights to papakāinga) and, in the interests of justice, the evidence should be received; the defendant's application to exclude the evidence was dismissed and the defendant may apply to adduce reply expert evidence, with adjournment likely.
22 Mar 2022

ROSKILL NOMINEES LTD v CUNNINGHAM [2022] NZHC 539

Citation

[2022] NZHC 539
Court

High Court

Costs were to lie where they fell because the applicant sought leave two years after commencement without explanation, the original statement of claim on its face disclosed a contractual cause of action enabling a defence, the leave application was abandoned after causing the plaintiff to incur expense, and it was therefore inappropriate to award the applicant costs or to reserve the plaintiff's costs on that application.
24 Aug 2021

TECHNOPAK LIMITED v MONZEAL LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2181

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2181
Court

High Court

The court held that individual computer files within CAD models and individual drawings within DrawingPacks constitute individual documents and must be listed for discovery; Technopak must provide verified lists showing author and date where not previously provided; the defendants must file an affidavit listing specified CAD drawings and models (including those used for 2012 website renderings) and explain documents no longer in their control; the phrase "including but not limited to" must be removed from the next amended statement of claim, but Schedule 1 as pleaded is sufficiently particula…
19 Jun 2020

RACHELLE v TEACHERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL - COMPLAINTS ASSESSMENT COMMITTEE [2020] NZHC 1395

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1395
Court

High Court

The documents filed by the appellant do not disclose any ground of appeal or viable civil claim and are rambling and argumentative; accordingly the purported proceedings are plainly an abuse of process and are struck out under High Court Rules 2016 r 5.35B.
19 Mar 2019

LODGE REAL ESTATE LIMITED v COMMERCE COMMISSION [2019] NZSC 28

Citation

[2019] NZSC 28
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted an extension of time and leave limited to the question whether the Court of Appeal should have allowed the respondent's appeal, but dismissed the applicants' proposed grounds challenging the adequacy of the pleading and the exclusion of expert evidence because those issues were case‑specific, not of general or public importance, and did not raise a sufficient risk of miscarriage of justice; further, both lower courts correctly concluded the expert evidence would undermine the protections of s 30 and was not substantially helpful under s 25(1) Evidence Act 2006.
14 Jul 2017

CLARKE v FORSYTH BARR LTD [2017] NZCA 300

Citation

[2017] NZCA 300
Court

Court of Appeal

The Registrar correctly refused dispensation because the appeal was without merit and the statement of claim failed to plead the basis for invalidating the exit agreement as required by the High Court Rules, so security for costs of $6,600 was justified to protect the respondent.
8 May 2017

BALLANTYNE TRUSTEES LTD, A N HEAD, CALMWATER ENTERPRISES PTY LTD as Trustees of the GBR TRUST and KEUNG v GBR INVESTMENT LTD and ORS [2017] NZHC 908

Citation

[2017] NZHC 908
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the defendants on an indemnity basis because the plaintiffs commenced and continued the proceeding and defended the strike-out application in a manner the Court found vexatious and frivolous, including pleading causes vested in the Official Assignee and time-barred or inadequately pleaded claims; second counsel costs were justified by complexity and potential quantum; quantum of indemnity costs to be fixed after production of unredacted invoices and supporting affidavits; application for stay refused.
14 Feb 2017

TE WHARE O TE KAITIAKI NGAHERE INC v WEST COAST REGIONAL COUNCIL [2017] NZHC 150

Citation

[2017] NZHC 150
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Environment Court did not err in refusing to vary the security for costs and in striking out the proceedings because (a) the appellant had not posted any security and could not demonstrate capacity to meet even a reduced order, and (b) the proposed amended pleadings remained fatally deficient in specificity such that declaratory relief under s310 RMA was inappropriate; alleged factual errors did not amount to errors of law warranting intervention.
12 Dec 2014

EQUITY TRUST INTERNATIONAL LTD v TRANSPARENCY NEW ZEALAND LTD [2014] NZHC 3192

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3192
Court

High Court

The strike out application was dismissed because the statement of claim, read on its pleaded facts, discloses reasonably arguable causes of action in defamation, malicious falsehood and breach of undertaking; the pleaded meanings imputing involvement in fraud, money laundering and connections with organised crime are not so untenable that they cannot possibly succeed, and the deficiencies and procedural irregularities alleged did not establish frivolousness, vexatiousness or abuse of process.
17 Sept 2012

JEDIS LIMITED V VODAFONE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-6270

Citation

openlaw-cbc6cdfa_f695_420a_87fb_db5385a74883.pdf
Court

High Court

Jedis Ltd has established a good arguable case to serve Vodafone Australia Ltd out of New Zealand under r 6.27(e) (property/copyright situated in NZ) and r 6.27(h)(i) (a 'proper' party with a real issue between it and Vodafone New Zealand), but not under r 6.27(a) (tort) or r 6.27(j) (enactment) as pleaded; accordingly the appearance protesting jurisdiction is not set aside at this stage and further discovery is ordered to determine whether the court should assume jurisdiction under r 6.28(5)(d).