New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Protective orders

Legal area

Court

17 Nov 2022

DAVIS v POLICE [2022] NZHC 3019

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3019
Court

High Court

The District Court erred by failing to identify and order the mandatory non-release consequence under s 86C(4) for the injuring with intent offence; on appeal the sentence was quashed and substituted to reflect what the sentencing Judge would have imposed while preserving the actual period the offender would serve (6 months for injuring with intent with non-release order, and 9 months concurrent on remaining charges cumulative on the lead sentence), with appropriate discounts for guilty pleas and mental impairment and imposition of post-release conditions and a protection order.
20 Mar 2019

POROWINI INVESTMENTS LIMITED v HAWTHORNE GEDDES ENGINEERS and ARCHITECTS LIMITED [2019] NZHC 524

Citation

[2019] NZHC 524
Court

High Court

The Court directed that the three named classes of documents (Deloitte report, yellow-highlighted financial records, and franchise agreements) be disclosed to parties' lawyers, retained expert witnesses, specified named individuals (including Mr Roger Taylor; named Hawthorne Geddes personnel James Blackburn, Dean Botica, Philip Higham, Peter Geddes; Hill Construction personnel Senescall and Wayne Hill; CEO and CFO of Whangarei District Council) and insurers where relevant, subject to express confidentiality undertakings (use only for the proceeding, no further disclosure), and that documents…
7 Nov 2017

WALKER v FORBES [2017] NZHC 2711

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2711
Court

High Court

The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted settlement agreement to counsel for the defendants and the third party in the first instance, and disclosure of the settlement sum and payment date to counsel and nominated insurers, on the condition of written undertakings of confidentiality, because disclosure to counsel with undertakings protects commercial sensitivity while enabling defendants to assess relevance and pursue further disclosure by leave of the court.
13 Apr 2017

SEALEGS INTERNATIONAL LTD v ZHANG [2017] NZHC 741

Citation

[2017] NZHC 741
Court

High Court

There was no material change in circumstances because Sealegs had amended its statement of claim and sought an expanded interim injunction before the original hearing and Peters J made an order covering drawings 1–68 including rear assemblies; therefore the interdiction could not be varied to exclude the S25-4WD; joinder of the Pringles and Stryda was appropriate to resolve related claims in one proceeding; inspection of the boat and CAD data was permitted but limited to counsel and independent experts under the defendants' proposed protective conditions; costs were apportioned accordingly.
16 Aug 2016

THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN v MEGA LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1898

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1898
Court

High Court

The Court held that the paragraph 11.5 material is relevant to Judge Ramos' Letter of Request because the evidence indicates the paragraph 11.5 articles likely derived from independent access to the emails (not merely public reposting) and therefore have the capacity to identify the hacker(s) or those acting in concert; the earlier High Court order stands and must be implemented; transmission to the SDNY was ordered with redaction of Mega's paragraph 3 and supervised transmission by Republic counsel, copying the Registrar and Mega's counsel; New York counsel for the Republic were excluded fro…
12 May 2016

THE REPUBLIC OF KAZAKHSTAN v MEGA LIMITED [2016] NZHC 963

Citation

[2016] NZAR 810
Court

High Court

The High Court held the SDNY Letter of Request met the requirements of s184(c) because the US proceedings were civil; the Request sought specific, identifiable evidence (not impermissible fishing) that Mega likely uniquely possessed; Mega could comply without undue burden; privacy and human rights concerns were mitigable by comprehensive protective orders; MACMA did not preclude civil assistance; accordingly the Court exercised its discretion under s185 to grant a subpoena requiring Mega's authorised representative to produce specified identifying information.
5 Dec 2014

VECTOR GAS CONTRACTS LIMITED v CONTACT ENERGY LIMITED [2014] NZHC 3102

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3102
Court

High Court

The Court granted the application for non-party discovery under article 27, ordering discovery in the scope of Schedule 1 as amended and confidentiality protections in the form of Schedule 2 as amended; the confidentiality regime must include identification of Approved Persons, executed undertakings, notification of erroneous access, and allowance for respondents to appoint single joint counsel; applicants must meet respondents' reasonable costs of providing discovery; leave reserved to vary orders and costs reserved.
22 Nov 2006

POLPERRO CORPORATION LIMITED V INTERNATIONAL MARINE SERVICES LIMITED HC AK CIV-2006-404-2390

Citation

openlaw-0d3f3c56_8b3d_4a56_8910_6f47b46b142d.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that, on the pleadings and the assumption that sham debts may be relied on, limited discovery was necessary: the defendant must produce financial accounts for the 12 months prior to the compromise (Category 1) and the creditors ledger for the 12 months prior to the compromise (Category 3). The other categories (2,4,5,6,7,8) were overbroad, speculative or not relevant and discovery of those items was refused; confidentiality does not excuse non-discovery and protective orders may be sought if necessary.