New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Solicitor‑client privilege

Legal area

Court

9 Oct 2023

HEALTHALLIANCE NZ LTD v HEWLETT-PACKARD [2023] NZHC 2828

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2828
Court

High Court

The Court held that litigation privilege did not attach to the correspondence surrounding the Deeds of Assignment and Indemnity and that the bulk of the challenged redactions were unjustified and must be disclosed; however, specific passages that plainly constitute solicitor-client communications or privileged legal advice shared on a common-interest basis remain protected and need not be disclosed.
27 Jul 2023

MOEKE v RAUKAWA IWI DEVELOPMENT LIMITED [2023] NZHC 1952

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1952
Court

High Court

The Court found the December 2018 documents were prepared for a dishonest purpose within the meaning of s 67 Evidence Act 2006 because the Liability Judgment had already found dishonest conduct in the defendants' scheme to deprive the plaintiff of his land interest; therefore solicitor-client privilege in respect of those 2018 documents was set aside. Redactions for solicitor-client privilege were ordered removed where they related to those documents; redactions for irrelevance were upheld. Non-party discovery was ordered narrowly: Bracken must swear an affidavit confirming he holds no furthe…
24 Nov 2021

O’BRIEN v PARKINSON & ORS [2021] NZHC 3161

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3161
Court

High Court

The Court found a prima facie case that certain documents were prepared as part of a scheme to conceal relationship property and intended to defeat Ms O'Brien's interests; accordingly privilege was set aside in respect of four specific documents that were meaningfully linked to the alleged dishonest purpose, but not for other documents; the application for further discovery was dismissed as without merit and untimely.
13 Jul 2021

BERIC v EADY [2021] NZHC 1755

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1755
Court

High Court

The court held the estate planning documents were privileged under s54 of the Evidence Act 2006; inclusion of files in a discovery list did not effect a general or implied waiver; the limited documents already disclosed did not waive privilege over the remainder; the joint interest exception did not apply because the documents were created by the deceased before the estate existed and the plaintiff did not hold an unqualified beneficial interest; accordingly the application to set aside the privilege claims was dismissed.
20 Nov 2019

TUUTA v KAMO [2019] NZHC 3026

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3026
Court

High Court

The defendants failed to satisfy the threshold on r 5.45(1)(b); there was insufficient credible evidence that the plaintiff would be unable to meet a likely costs award (~$60,000), so the security for costs application was dismissed. The plaintiff, as a registered beneficiary and former trustee, is entitled to disclosure of trust documents absent a valid claim of litigation privilege; accordingly the court allowed the plaintiff's r 8.25 challenge to solicitor-client privilege in the affidavit of documents sworn by Mr Kamo and ordered discovery subject to retention of legitimate litigation pri…
20 Dec 2018

REDWOOD GROUP LIMITED v QUEENSTOWN GATEWAY (5M) LIMITED [2018]NZHC 3439

Citation

[2018]NZHC 3439
Court

High Court

Court ordered security for costs of $100,000 payable in three instalments because credible evidence supported inference plaintiff may be unable to meet costs and the balance of merits favoured defendants; refused order requiring individual listing of solicitor-client privileged documents because Rules permit group listing and descriptions sufficient to assess privilege; granted third party discovery against KCM/Kerry Knight as documents were relevant to refinancing offers and defendants' case; refused plaintiff's discovery requests for litigation and solicitor-client privileged documents held…
31 Oct 2017

ZHAO v THE LEGAL COMPLAINTS REVIEW OFFICER [2017] NZHC 1561

Citation

[2017] NZAR 1760
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to demonstrate he took appropriate steps or had material establishing reasonable grounds for pleading deceit/fraud; he did not rebut the Committee's and LCRO's findings and did not assert or substantiate privilege; accordingly LCRO correctly upheld findings that applicant breached r 13.8.1 (and consequently rr 13.8 and 13) and the judicial review application was dismissed.
6 Dec 2016

BURGESS v MALLEY & CO [2016] NZCA 585

Citation

[2016] NZCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal

Because the appellant's non-compliance with filing and seeking a hearing date was materially related to an unresolved security-for-costs decision, the Court exercised its discretion under r 43(2) to grant an extension to allow the appellant to pursue Supreme Court leave; conditional time limits for payment of security were set depending on the Supreme Court outcome. The application to remove the respondent's lawyers was refused because the allegation lacked evidential foundation, the threshold for removal was not met and relevant evidence might be privileged.
27 May 2015

WELLINGTON CITY COUNCIL v LOCAL GOVERNMENT MUTUAL FUNDS TRUSTEE LIMITED[2015] NZHC 1151

Citation

[2015] NZHC 1151
Court

High Court

The Court ordered further and more complete searches and particular discovery for the specified categories of documents because they are relevant to live issues in the pleadings and are or likely are in the defendant's possession; the defendant must file a further affidavit identifying search steps and either confirming absence or disclosing located documents; the final commutation agreement was disclosed and other categories (reinsurance contracts/policies for 2003/2004, financial records including commutation balances and surpluses, negotiation records, board papers concerning calls, limite…
23 Feb 2015

NZX LTD v RALEC COMMODITIES PTY LTD [2015] NZHC 241

Citation

[2015] NZHC 241
Court

High Court

The Court limited NZX’s confidentiality claims but upheld legitimate privacy and commercial interests by ordering tailored disclosure: employee-related documents require written consent from identified individuals or redaction of identities; commercially sensitive NZX documents may be disclosed to Ralec’s experts and to former principals Pym and Thomas only upon specific written undertakings and submission to New Zealand jurisdiction; experts (including overseas) must execute written undertakings and be independent; contested redactions are to be examined confidentially by Ralec’s New Zealand…