New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Settlement privilege

Legal area

Court

13 Dec 2021

SMITH v CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LTD [2021] NZHC 3424

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3424
Court

High Court

The Court continued and made a freezing order over the identified property and up to $200,000 of net sale proceeds because CRS demonstrated a good arguable contractual claim, identifiable assets, and a real risk of dissipation based on the plaintiff's own communications; the settlement privilege did not prevent reliance on the exhibited emails; balance of convenience and overall justice supported continuation of the order, with leave to apply to vary and costs reserved.
27 Aug 2019

SOMA v NATH [2019] NZHC 2119

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2119
Court

High Court

Award plaintiff High Court 2B scale costs but reduce by 50% because plaintiff only succeeded on smaller claims that could have been brought in District Court and caused defendants significant additional expense defending the failed major $800,000 claim; settlement negotiations were privileged and not admissible for costs purposes.
13 Jul 2016

M Yovich & Sons Limited v Peters [2016] NZHC 1572

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1572
Court

High Court

Court found plaintiffs engaged in improper conduct by failing to disclose material facts to the court in ex parte applications (notably that Thomson Wilson were involved in settlement negotiations for other interests and that settlement would not resolve issues as to Thomson Wilson). However, despite that improper obtaining of the interlocutory extensions under r 7.51, the Judge exercised discretion not to rescind because the prejudice to plaintiffs (loss of cause by operation of limitation if extensions were rescinded) outweighed the speculative and limited prejudice to Thomson Wilson; accor…
4 Jun 2015

CAPITAL + MERCHANT FINANCE LTD v PERPETUAL TRUST LTD [2015] NZHC 1233

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1233
Court

High Court

The court found CMF's briefs disclosed significant privileged communications but service of those briefs was not necessarily inconsistent with confidentiality; however collateral waiver applies to prevent selective use of privileged material so if CMF proceeds with its current briefs it must discover, subject to redaction for legal advice, all documents dated 18–24 September 2014 relevant to specific settlement issues identified by the court and must provide unredacted copies (for relevance) of two specified emails; alternatively CMF may amend its briefs by the court's deadline.
10 Dec 2014

CONEYBEER v ALLEN & OR [2014] NZHC 3151

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3151
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the application for personal costs because the solicitor's errors were at most minor and did not amount to the serious dereliction or gross negligence required to justify personal costs; commencing proceedings to preserve limitation and deferring steps pending Family Court resolution were reasonable; procedural non-compliance did not void the proceedings and privileged settlement communications could not be used to show impecuniosity.
29 Aug 2014

Sylvia Park Business Centre Ltd v Brookfield Multiplex Construction (NZ) Ltd [2014] NZHC 2058

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2058
Court

High Court

At the early pre-trial stage disclosure of statements of claim and defence was refused because the pleadings are untested, the public interest in leaky building cases did not apply, the orderly administration of justice and protection of confidentiality/privacy outweighed the open justice factor, and no exceptional circumstances justified suppression of the judgment.
25 Oct 2012

CONSOLIDATED ALLOYS (NZ) LTD V EDGING SYSTEMS (NZ) LTD HC AK CIV-2012-404-003021

Citation

openlaw-acb44d7e_60a3_4594_b9be_a566c64b7e1f.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to serve interrogatories was granted only in respect of questions that directly related to whether the second defendant caused or was responsible for the alleged unlawful acts (interrogatories 5(a)–(h) and 5(o)), with limited wording amendments, because the plaintiff reasonably expected a brief from the second defendant and the questions sought direct facts not oppressive investigation; other interrogatories were refused as oppressive, irrelevant or seeking detailed discovery; the court will accept admissible evidence that a 'will say' statement existed without admitting its contents si…
27 Jul 2012

MCCULLOCH & ORS V QUINN & ORS HC AK CIV 2011-404-3508

Citation

openlaw-c4128fb6_329a_4fc2_a077_959d737c2c98.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held that the without prejudice/litigation privilege over the disputed emails remained intact and was properly claimed by the negotiating parties (first to fourth defendants); Companies Act s168 does not automatically trump litigation privilege or justify production of privileged settlement communications absent recognised exceptions (fraud, dishonesty, waiver, or other established exceptions), and no such exception was established on the evidence; accordingly the plaintiffs' application for production was dismissed and the defendants entitled to costs.