New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Proportionality in discovery

Legal area

Court

5 Jul 2023

TALLEY’S GROUP LIMITED v BIOMEX TRUSTEES LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1732

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1732
Court

High Court

Leave to file the interlocutory application for particular discovery was refused because the application was brought after the close of pleadings close to trial, the categories sought were broad and insufficiently defined, there were serious doubts about relevance to pleaded issues, extensive discovery litigation had already occurred, and the likely cost and delay outweighed the potential value of the further discovery.
27 Mar 2023

DGL MANUFACTURING LTD v RODNEY WAYNE SIMMONDS [2023] NZHC 607

Citation

[2023] NZHC 607
Court

High Court

Leave to bring the interlocutory application was granted but only limited further discovery was ordered because the broad categories sought were disproportionate and oppressive given the proximity of trial; the Court ordered narrowly tailored classes of source documents tied to specific ledger items and invoices, limited by timeframe and procedure, and refused extensive standard discovery.
20 Dec 2022

TALLEY’S GROUP LTD v BIOMEX TRUSTEES LTD [2022] NZHC 3548

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3548
Court

High Court

Applying a realistic appraisal of the end result both parties achieved some measure of success on the interlocutory discovery and confidentiality applications, the precise apportionment of success could not be fairly determined on the material before the Court, and given proportionality and practicality considerations it was not appropriate to award costs to either side; accordingly costs lie where they fall.
28 May 2021

C & R CONSTRUCTION LTD v TAHAROA IRONSANDS LTD & ORS [2021] NZHC 1222

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1222
Court

High Court

Documents concerning Taharoa's arrangements for alternative earthmoving equipment are relevant to C & R's rectification claim because post‑contract conduct can illuminate the parties' mutual intention; r 8.17 permits variation where circumstances changed (abandonment of the counterclaim) and a tailored variation limited by proportionality is appropriate, so category 10 was amended rather than removed and Taharoa ordered to provide discovery of the narrowed category within a fixed time; C & R's standalone discovery application was dismissed as addressed by the r 8.17 order.
4 Feb 2020

The Minister of Education v James Hardie New Zealand [2020] NZHC 82

Citation

[2020] NZHC 82
Court

High Court

Carter Holt must provide a list of discovered documents that complies with the Listing and Exchange Protocol in Schedule 9 to the High Court Rules because the Protocol's requirements are mandatory under r 8.15 and Carter Holt's reliance on extracted metadata and searchable PDFs does not satisfy the mandatory form and content requirements; ordering re-coding is not disproportionate given the case scale and the importance of usable discovery.
4 Dec 2019

PEGUERO v JESS [2019] NZHC [3188]

Citation

PEGUERO v JESS [2019] NZHC [3188]
Court

High Court

The Court declined to order production of all unredacted bank statements because the plaintiffs failed to establish reasonable grounds under r 8.19 that additional relevant undisclosed documents exist, the bulk of bank entries were likely irrelevant, and the defendant had sworn she had produced all pages evidencing deposits from the deceased; however the Court ordered limited further discovery of bank entries relating to a $20,000 payment and repayment for a car due to an obvious omission.
21 Oct 2019

BODY CORPORATE 423090 v QBE INSURANCE (INTERNATIONAL) LIMITED [2019] NZHC 2697 [21 October 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2697
Court

High Court

The listing protocol requires only the information that can be determined from the face of each document; compilers are not required as a matter of course to search extraneous materials or third party electronic systems to populate listing fields. Consequently the plaintiff's broad order to compel completion of missing author/recipient/date fields for all 1,292 documents was refused; however QBE was directed to provide reasonable contextual information identifying the files from which documents were taken and as much file-related information as reasonably possible and to provide third party e…
25 Jul 2019

Minister of Education v James Hardie New Zealand Limited [2019] NZHC 1760

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1760
Court

High Court

Application for particular discovery dismissed because documents concerning face (surface) checking are not relevant to the case as presently pleaded in the sixth amended statement of claim; face checking is not pleaded as a defect or a pleaded contributing factor so Carter Holt was not obliged to discover documents specific to it; if Ministry amends its pleadings to include face checking by 1 August 2019, discovery of documents on that discrete issue would be proportionate and Carter Holt should give discovery by the targeted process discussed.
4 Jul 2019

KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1 v JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND [2019] NZHC 1543

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1543
Court

High Court

Given the defendants' continuing denial of responsibility, documents in Categories J (insurance), P (licensing/branding) and U (agency/representation/joint venture) are prima facie relevant and discovery of those categories is necessary and proportionate to resolve who was responsible for the products; privilege is not a sufficient reason to refuse discovery and temporal scope should be refined by the parties with leave to return to the Court if required.
30 Jul 2018

LOOI HONG KOK (also known as LEWIS LOOI) v EXCEED FITNESS AND HEALTH LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1909

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1909
Court

High Court

The r 8.19 application was dismissed because the applicant failed to demonstrate that the categories of documents sought were relevant to the matters as pleaded; many sought documents were either publicly available or already disclosed, were not in the defendants' control or could not be required to be restored, and communications with lawyers were privileged; further discovery would be disproportionate absent amended pleadings and legal advice.