New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Standard discovery

Legal area

Court

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.
29 Aug 2022

REMEDIATION (NZ) LIMITED v ENVIRO (NZ) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2155

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2155
Court

High Court

Internal, single-party communications of Enviro were not discoverable because they were not sufficiently relevant to the pleaded causes of action: they would mainly evidence subjective belief or intention and therefore do not assist the objective tests applied to s 9 FTA or contract interpretation nor satisfy the Firm PI 1 objective background test for establishing fiduciary status. Communications between Enviro and third parties (notably Tauranga City Council and the health and safety auditor) were, however, sufficiently relevant to the pleaded causes (breach of fiduciary duty, misleading or…
18 Mar 2022

RYAN v LOBB (Costs) [2022] NZHC 513

Citation

[2022] NZHC 513
Court

High Court

Lockhart was entitled under r 8.22 to have Mr Lobb pay its actual and reasonable costs and disbursements of complying with the discovery order because Lockhart acted reasonably, had no interest in the litigation after removal as trustee, and it would be manifestly unjust for it to bear those costs; additionally Lockhart is entitled to be indemnified from the Lothbury Trust assets for reasonable costs and expenses properly incurred acting on behalf of the trust, subject to agreement or court determination of quantum.
3 Dec 2021

RYAN v LOBB [2021] NZHC 3294

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3294
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused and the application to vary or rescind the discovery orders dismissed because no arguable error of law of sufficient importance was identified, the tailored discovery categories were overbroad and disproportionate to the narrow declaratory issue, the application was in part out of time under r7.49, and the history of litigation and need to avoid further delay outweighed granting leave; remaining disclosure issues are to be addressed by particular discovery and existing discovery orders have effectively been complied with.
27 Aug 2021

RYAN v LOBB [2021] NZHC 2219

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2219
Court

High Court

The court refused the broad tailored discovery sought as disproportionate and insufficiently tethered to the narrow issue to be decided (the meaning of 'contributions' in cl 2.5(3)). Instead the court ordered standard discovery from the parties (Ms Ryan, Mr Lobb, Lockhart) by affidavit of documents within 28 days and ordered Public Trust to file a particular affidavit of documents within 28 days limited to documents concerning formation and administration of the Trust, including documents relevant to acquisition of trust assets and contributions to acquisition, maintenance, development or imp…
7 Nov 2019

JONES v MAIHI [2019] NZHC 2907

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2907
Court

High Court

Costs were not to be reserved; in respect of the plaintiff's application for relief from electronic discovery costs were left where they fell, but the defendant was entirely successful on the further and better discovery application and the plaintiff's inadequate initial disclosure (25 documents rising to 207) warranted an order that the plaintiff pay the defendant's costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements allowed by the Registrar.
1 May 2018

THODE and v TURNERS AND GROWERS HORTICULTURE LIMITED [2018] NZHC 890

Citation

[2018] NZHC 890
Court

High Court

Dismissal: Mr Malone's affidavit of 23 March 2018 removed the premise for relief under r9.75; in any event the court would decline to exercise its discretion to compel attendance or an affidavit because no special circumstances were shown, discovery is a standard application governed by proportionality and reasonable search obligations, and an Associate Judge must avoid making coercive declarations that would exceed jurisdiction.
14 Nov 2014

YAOMING GONG v SHIJUN ZHANG [2014] NZHC 2838

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2838
Court

High Court

The Court applied the pleaded issues and the adverse‑documents test to refuse broad, speculative discovery requests and to grant narrowly framed discovery and further interrogatory answers only where documents were shown to be likely within the party's control and directly relevant to the pleaded issues (notably to assess propensity evidence about alleged misuse of signatures and to verify asserted casino transactions). Orders were limited in scope and time, non‑probative or fishing requests were refused, and several specific interrogatory answers were required within 20 working days.
29 Oct 2014

DOMENICO TRUSTEE LTD v TOWER INSURANCE LTD [2014] NZHC 2657

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2657
Court

High Court

Leave to bring the interlocutory application was granted because recent corporate rearrangements and material discrepancies in cost estimates gave rise to real issues about the independence and financial interest of the proposed expert; the interrogatories were necessary to obtain facts relevant to the cost position; standard discovery was ordered because informal disclosure was inadequate; tailored discovery under r 8.19 was permitted for limited classes of documents relevant to the admissibility and weight of Mr Betts' evidence where the interests of justice and proportionality favour discl…
20 Feb 2013

Z ENERGY LIMITED V OCEANA GOLD (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED HC WN CIV-2012-485-1810

Citation

openlaw-572baeb6_d6bb_41f6_9675_d76285aa125e.pdf
Court

High Court

Under r 8.7 the Court ordered standard discovery limited to documents relating to the 'Government Taxes and Charges' line item in Schedule 1 and limited discovery of documents relating to the 2009 review and the ETS fee to those emanating from or provided to the ETS 'Project Team', as a proportionate initial step, with leave reserved for further directions.