New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privilege waiver

Legal area

Court

24 Mar 2023

COLVILLE v COLVILLE [2023] NZHC 619

Citation

[2023] NZHC 619
Court

High Court

The Court granted the interlocutory application for further and better discovery: documents relating to Adam's sale of shares in Hammer Down Developments Ltd and documents and communications concerning the franchise fee payable by West Coast Residential Ltd to Stonewood Homes are relevant and must be disclosed; the amount of the franchise fee is to be confidential to counsel and experts only; Adam waived privilege in the forensic expert's report and that report must be produced; timelines for disclosure and procedures for resolving remaining confidentiality disputes were set; costs reserved.
14 Jun 2022

LEEDS and WOOD v RICHARDS [2022] NZHC 1389

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1389
Court

High Court

SWL is entitled to recover its actual and reasonable costs incurred in complying with obligations arising directly from the letter of request; the court will not make an arbitrary deduction for an unquantified profit margin from SWL's commercial charge-out rates in that context. SWL did not demonstrate entitlement to solicitor/client indemnity costs for other attendances; those other attendances are recoverable only on scale (category 2B) for allowed steps with certain items disallowed. Quantification of scale costs is left to counsel or assessment.
10 Feb 2022

BIL NZ TREASURY LIMITED v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS NEW ZEALAND [2022] NZHC 150

Citation

[2022] NZHC 150
Court

High Court

The court ordered limited further discovery: PwC must rerun specified pre-2011 Lotus Notes searches using plaintiffs' terms and disclose relevant results; most plaintiff requests for post-2011 Lotus Notes, iManage folders, Wellington shared drive, hard copy boxes and other specific discovery were dismissed because plaintiffs failed to show credible evidence those searches would yield relevant undisclosed material; the plaintiffs must provide discovery or affidavits regarding the Manuka Health sale and purchase agreement and must discover exchanges with EY Law on the efficacy of the mechanism…
22 Dec 2021

SOUTH PACIFIC INDUSTRIAL LTD v DEMASOL LTD [2021] NZHC 3597

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3597
Court

High Court

The statutory demand was set aside because it was reasonably arguable that Payment Claim 2 was not a valid payment claim under the CCA: the parties reasonably arguably agreed a fixed price single payment contract of $100,000 (with specified tipping terms) and most of the amount claimed in Payment Claim 2 comprised large variations that were not authorised by the contract, so s 23 could not be relied on to render the amounts a debt due.
22 Apr 2021

WESTGATE TOWN CENTRE LTD v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 858

Citation

[2021] NZHC 858
Court

High Court

The Court ordered AC/AT to discover WCC documents within the specified categories because those documents were likely relevant to interpreting the interrelated contractual suite and potentially to implied terms; further, voluntary disclosure of the unredacted Meredith Connell report with its appendix amounted to waiver of privilege over the documents identified as key in that report; the discovery sought was proportionate given the public bodies' record-keeping obligations and the scale of the claim.
20 Dec 2019

The Minister of Education v James Hardie New Zealand [2019] NZHC 3487

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3487
Court

High Court

The court set aside Carter Holt's litigation privilege claims over the 25 inadvertently disclosed complaint-related documents because at the time those documents were created litigation was not reasonably apprehended and the dominant purpose was investigation/remediation rather than preparation for proceedings; without prejudice privilege was upheld for three other internal settlement-related documents but denied for one system-generated record; regarding the Ministry, initial and condensed/reduced reports prepared to inform remediation or where legal recovery was unknown are not privileged,…
22 Nov 2016

SKAGEN v WELLINGTON STANDARDS COMMITTEE OF THE NEW ZEALAND LAW SOCIETY [2016] NZHC 2799

Citation

[2016] NZHC 2799
Court

High Court

The application for recall is dismissed because the matters advanced were either considered and addressed in the earlier judgment or do not constitute the extraordinary grounds required for recall; any waiver of privilege is, at most, limited to an email reporting a non‑privileged teleconference and there is no basis for a broader inference of waiver or for ordering discovery; no costs order was made given the appellant's impecuniosity.
4 Nov 2015

MITRE 10 (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED v THISTLE DOME HOLDINGS LIMITED [2015] NZHC 2719 [4 November 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZAR 1909
Court

High Court

The court inspected the documents and held 19 emails were confidential communications between Advance Property and its solicitors made for the purpose of legal advice and, because Mitre 10 shared a closely aligned/common interest (Advance Property acting effectively as Mitre 10's agent in the purchase/nomination), common interest privilege applied to extend that privilege to Mitre 10; four emails were administrative settlement communications and not privileged and must be disclosed.
23 Aug 2013

TASMAN INSULATION NEW ZEALAND LTD v KNAUF INSULATION LTD [2013] NZHC 2167

Citation

[2013] NZHC 2167
Court

High Court

The court refused to exclude the plaintiff's market survey evidence because the plaintiff had disclosed the questions and summary results in a without prejudice letter dated 7 June 2013, which put defendants on notice of the surveys and meant they were not sufficiently prejudiced by the later service of full materials to justify exclusion; discovery and leave issues were reserved to trial.
10 Aug 2011

A V R SC SC 71/2011

Citation

SC 71/2011
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the application was substantially out of time, did not raise a matter of public or general importance, lacked sufficient probative material to demonstrate a substantial miscarriage of justice, and raised factual conflicts that would require the complainant's evidence and are more appropriately addressed by a s 406 Governor‑General reference.