New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privilege and confidentiality

Legal area

Court

9 Jun 2022

LIPSHAM v HELMBRIGHT [2022] NZHC 1350

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1350
Court

High Court

Documents sought were relevant to key disputed factual and legal issues, there was credible evidence they exist (including inference re template download and backups), they were not protected by legal privilege or confidentiality so as to preclude discovery, and discovery was proportionate; accordingly the defendant was ordered to search devices and backups, retrieve documents from solicitors and third parties, file a further affidavit listing located and missing documents, make documents available for inspection, and produce specified categories including tax returns, bank statements (inspec…
27 Feb 2020

Dalton v Hong NZHC 311

Citation

openlaw-4adde8fe_3201_4494_a35b_e51ddfea7ca2.pdf
Court

High Court

The liquidators were substantially successful in obtaining production of documents; respondent failed to identify privilege/confidentiality properly and was directed to produce documents; taking into account respondent's necessary subsequent compliance work by analogy to s261(5) the Court awarded costs to the liquidators of $11,472 (2B to end of hearing) less a $3,000 credit for respondent's compliance, resulting in an award of $8,472 plus disbursements; respondent's cross-claim for costs dismissed.
19 Sept 2017

TRIEZENBERG AND DODD v MASON [2017] NZHC 2271

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2271
Court

High Court

The subpoena was set aside because counsel should have first applied for leave under s72 of the Evidence Act before seeking to subpoena trial counsel; the subpoena was unnecessary, likely an abuse of process, and prevented trial counsel from acting pending resolution, and indemnity costs were appropriate against the defendant's counsel for proceeding improperly.
26 Feb 2015

MANCHESTER SECURITIES LIMITED v BODY CORPORATE 172108 CA719/2014 [2015] NZCA 29 [26 February 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZCA 29
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court erred in treating Manchester as seeking a share of settlement funds; settlement terms were relevant to the variation application because they could show an advantage received by other owners that bears on equitable apportionment, the documents sought were capable of supporting or damaging relevant issues, disclosure was proportionate and no valid claim to privilege was shown, therefore the respondent must discover the settlement documents within 14 days.
4 Apr 2012

PETTERSON V GOTHARD AND EAGLE HC AK CIV 2011-404-7069

Citation

openlaw-ba95a1ac_8063_4a42_bd0b_7e74a830e776.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held the emailed notice of failure was validly served because the Ferrier Hodgson email system was a designated information system (Electronic Transactions Act s11 and Model Law principles). The liquidator properly relied on s261(1) to request company books and records; the requested documents were company records (s194) and not solely receivers' working papers. The receivers failed to comply with the s261(1) notice. Section 262 permits receivers to retain documents necessary for the receivership but requires the liquidator to pay reasonable expenses for copies; the court ordered pr…
7 Apr 2008

BURMEISTER & ANOR V O'BRIEN AND ORS HC TAU CIV 2005-470-396

Citation

openlaw-8e6676b9_3f96_4bec_b7b0_b5afce53c615.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court ordered Harding & Associates Limited to give non-party discovery under r302 because an order was necessary; however s40 of the Legal Services Act 2000 protects legally aided applicants from being ordered to pay the non-party's expenses, costs or disbursements unless exceptional circumstances are shown, and no such application was made, so Harding & Associates cannot recover its expenses under r303 absent exceptional circumstances; Harding & Associates was given 20 working days to comply and may assert privilege or confidentiality by affidavit with possible in-camera inspection under…
19 Mar 2007

MIRO PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED V LING 2 INVESTMENTS LIMITED AND ANOR HC WN CIV-2003-485-1322

Citation

openlaw-3eeeea0c_e34b_40b4_a21d_7326fbd633bf.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court applied the wide Peruvian Guano relevance test and ordered discovery of specified files and particular documents that were potentially relevant to the pleaded claims (fit-out loan misrepresentation, rent-review conduct, lift and air-conditioning defects), refused discovery for the valuation file 335 417 as irrelevant, and reserved leave for defendants to seek confidentiality or restriction orders on specific documents; production was ordered within 20 working days.
21 Nov 2005

SIEMER AND ANOR V ROBERT FARDELL HC AK CIV.2003-404-5782

Citation

openlaw-69c5f8d2_c373_4603_872c_8e5c4e82cc28.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendant's affidavits and prior disclosures were inadequate or that the additional documents sought were relevant to pleaded matters; confidentiality and privilege protected the material sought; accordingly the application for further discovery was dismissed except the court required a focused affidavit listing invoice dates and identifying the recipient transactions and the percentage of the defendant's gross fees represented by each invoice to allay conflict concerns.