New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proportionality

Legal area

Court

21 Dec 2023

DEM HOME LTD v NEW GATE LTD [2023] NZHC 3873

Citation

[2023] NZHC 3873
Court

High Court

Section 23(2)(a)(ii) of the CCA creates a presumption that a successful payee is entitled to recover actual and reasonable costs of recovery; the court must ensure those costs are reasonable and proportionate. Applying that principle the claimed costs were reasonable and not disproportionate to the $240,000 dispute, so Dem Home was ordered to pay New Gate $32,062.70 in actual costs and $1,466.73 in disbursements.
8 Aug 2023

RYLAND v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2023] NZHC 2100

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2100
Court

High Court

The District Court failed to demonstrate it had applied the statutory thresholds for imposing a supervision sentence under s46 and for imposing the special rehabilitative condition under ss50 and 52 (significant risk of further offending and inadequacy of standard conditions); the supervision sentence was not shown to be the least restrictive appropriate outcome and therefore must be quashed and substituted with an order to come up for sentence if called upon within six months.
9 Jun 2023

LIKILIKI v POLICE [2023] NZHC 1428

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1428
Court

High Court

Given the offending was at the lower end of moderate seriousness but expert immigration evidence established that conviction would very likely lead to deportation and materially worsen an already existing liability, the immigration consequence of conviction was out of all proportion to the gravity of the offending; accordingly the conviction was quashed and the appellant discharged without conviction under s106 Sentencing Act 2002.
5 Apr 2023

AFFORDABLE HOUSING LTD v BODY CORPORATE 396511 [2023] NZHC 776

Citation

[2023] NZHC 776
Court

High Court

Applying the r 8.19 / r 8.18 framework and the McGechan four-step test the Court held categories 1, 2, 4 and 6 are relevant and sufficiently material and not disproportional to require discovery; category 3 is privileged and must be recorded in Part 2 of the affidavit; category 5 had already been provided. The Court ordered the Body Corporate to file and serve a supplementary affidavit of documents by 2 May 2023 containing the specified categories (with an amended scope for category 2) and directed parties to confer on confidentiality procedures; costs preliminarily reserved for the plaintiff.
7 Mar 2023

EEN v BODY CORPORATE 384911 [2023] NZHC 418

Citation

[2023] NZHC 418
Court

High Court

The Court ordered limited particular discovery against the second to sixth defendants because certain categories of documents (A,B, limited C, D, limited E, F, G) were sufficiently relevant to the central issue about use and control of common property to justify discovery subject to e‑Discovery narrowing and redaction for commercially sensitive material; discovery of category H was refused; discovery against the seventh defendant was declined for all categories as duplicative, not in its control or disproportionate; an unredacted HMA must be produced by the second to sixth defendants except f…
8 Feb 2023

WALLACE, VINCENT, CARROLL, BASSETT, ROPITINI, JONES AND ATKINS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2023] NZHC 139

Citation

[2023] NZHC 139
Court

High Court

Court applied the discretionary, relevance and proportionality tests for discovery in judicial review: refused broad discovery and interrogatories as disproportionate and unnecessary to the high-level pleaded challenge; ordered limited, specific disclosure directly relevant to the network rebalancing decision (Arohata Plan and certain staffing 'deep dive' material) and limited discovery of communications from CWP and ARCF to national office for a defined period; declined discovery of individual prisoner assessment files and most post-decision material while preserving ability to revisit at su…
5 Dec 2022

REMEDIATION (NZ) LIMITED v ENVIRO (NZ) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3224

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3224
Court

High Court

Award split: plaintiff awarded 2B costs for successful discovery application but reduced by 30% for partial failure (internal communications not ordered) resulting in $5,853.60; defendants awarded 2B costs for plaintiff's abandoned standard discovery, reduced by 30% for overlap and case management applicability, resulting in $7,619.50; defendants' claim for costs of preparing the costs memorandum refused because plaintiff was awarded costs on its discovery application.
23 Nov 2022

COMMERCE COMMISSION v VIAGOGO AG [2022] NZHC 3058

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3058
Court

High Court

The Court ordered the Commission to discover and produce consumer Complaints Records (subject to appropriate redactions where privacy requires), refused to order discovery of Competitor Enforcement Records as not sufficiently relevant, and ordered limited discovery of Underlying Witness Documents only where specific documents are referred to or relied upon by witnesses and come into the Commission's possession (including if the Commission elects to exercise s47G to obtain them); the Court declined to compel the Commission to exercise its statutory powers to obtain documents and required furth…
20 Oct 2022

CUMMINS v BODY CORPORATE 172108 [2022] NZCA 496

Citation

[2022] NZCA 496
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the claimed costs were reasonable and proportionate given the complexity, factual history and issues raised on appeal (including novel arguments from the appellant), found the specific time entries justified, rejected the appellant's motivation-based reduction argument because the appellant initiated an appeal that was an abuse of process, and fixed indemnity costs at the full claimed amount of $35,276 while making no order for costs of the costs-fixing application.
10 Oct 2022

TAU v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2022] NZHC 2604

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2604
Court

High Court

Tailored discovery orders are appropriate and granted with modifications: categories in Schedule 3 apply; for categories 6 and 7 disclosure is to be staged (stage one Cabinet papers, minutes and briefings to Ministers; stage two further documents referenced and requested); the date range for category 6 is limited to from 2003 (with parties to negotiate a focused sub-category addressing SOE reforms if necessary); DPMC is included as a relevant agency for category 7; the Crown's proposed case-study approach does not displace discovery; the application to transfer under s26(1) is refused.