New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Pleadings adequacy

Legal area

Court

18 May 2016

TE WAIRUA O TE ORA LIMITED v TUHOE WAIKAREMOANA MAORI TRUST BOARD AND ORS [2016] NZHC 1013

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1013
Court

High Court

The court found the defendants showed sufficient need for particularity and further discovery to enable meaningful defence and expert instruction; given the plaintiff had not updated its affidavit of documents since 2014 and asserted limited records with some seized, the court ordered targeted further particulars and discovery proportional to the issues in dispute (documents since the previous affidavit, disclosure of documents in others' possession, evidence of contracted programmes, chattel ownership, income streams segregation and evidence of the $152,332 loan) and directed steps to facili…
2 Sept 2011

COMMUNITY BEREAVEMENT TRUST V THE NEW ZEALAND QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY HC WN CIV 2009-419-1588

Citation

openlaw-07c2eb29_4755_443c_bf26_be43e877b18e.pdf
Court

High Court

Summary judgment was appropriate because the plaintiff's amended pleadings failed to establish a statutory duty enforceable in private law that would support damages, the statutory scheme protects students and public standards (remedied by judicial review), and no tenable common law duty of care was identified or pleaded.
8 May 2009

BRADY ERROL CHADWICK V DOMINION POST/FAIRFAX MEDIA HC WN CIV 2008-485-2614

Citation

openlaw-429364a3_80ed_419f_bfdc_daf3a1601c8b.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the plaintiff demonstrated no assets or income, made no response, filed inadequate and speculative pleadings, and the defendant showed a probable defence of qualified privilege and prior instances of frivolous litigation, the Court concluded there was reason to believe the plaintiff could not pay costs; it was therefore just to order security for costs of $10,000 and to stay proceedings until that security was paid or appropriately secured.
18 Oct 2006

HIEBER AS TRUSTEE AND ANOR V COTTON HC AK CIV 2005-404-7393

Citation

openlaw-d8d72c90_1dff_4194_900e_9d07c6c9a2d2.pdf
Court

High Court

IRDL was justified in striking out part of Perth's claim because the plaintiff's pleadings were inadequate; accordingly IRDL is entitled to costs against Perth on a 2B basis with disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar, and no allowance would be made for unsuccessful District Court hearings; the question of payment out of funds held by the District Court Registrar requires further submissions and a directed chambers hearing.

New Zealand Case Law

TE WAIRUA O TE ORA LIMITED v TUHOE WAIKAREMOANA MAORI TRUST BOARD AND ORS [2016] NZHC 1013

COMMUNITY BEREAVEMENT TRUST V THE NEW ZEALAND QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY HC WN CIV 2009-419-1588

BRADY ERROL CHADWICK V DOMINION POST/FAIRFAX MEDIA HC WN CIV 2008-485-2614

HIEBER AS TRUSTEE AND ANOR V COTTON HC AK CIV 2005-404-7393