New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Statement of defence

Legal area

Court

1 Dec 2022

CUNNINGHAM v JOHNSON [2022] NZHC 3182

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3182
Court

High Court

The Court held that some denials in the defendants' statement of defence were adequate when read in context, but several sub-paragraphs were evasive or unclear—particularly where single paragraphs in the statement of claim contained multiple factual propositions or mixed fact and law—and ordered the defendants to re-plead specified sub-paragraphs to provide fair and substantial answers in accordance with r 5.48 High Court Rules 2016; costs were to lie where they fall.
21 Aug 2017

LMLW LIMITED v ARMSTRONG MURRAY [2017] NZHC 2000

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2000
Court

High Court

The Court declined to direct the defendant to file a statement of defence because rule 12.10 expressly makes filing a statement optional, there was no authority to compel filing, and it was not appropriate to exercise inherent jurisdiction to require a defence in these circumstances.
2 Jul 2013

MARLEY NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v SKELLERUP RUBBER SERVICES LIMITED [2013] NZHC 1653

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1653
Court

High Court

The draft third amended statement of defence was held to be inadequate and evasive: Skellerup must, when it files its amended statement of defence, provide clear, direct, fair and substantial answers to each material factual allegation in the corresponding paragraphs of the statement of claim, avoid non‑specific cross‑references and 'otherwise denies' formulations unless they wholly and expressly answer the allegation, and specify what aspects of contracts, standards and documents it admits or denies; no formal order was made at this stage and leave was reserved to Marley to seek formal relie…
7 Sept 2012

AIR NEW ZEALAND LIMITED V AIR NIUGINI LIMITED HC AK CIV-2009-404-3460

Citation

openlaw-2f55133e_9457_4be0_9951_adeb4c6ba11c.pdf
Court

High Court

The court held the defendant's application was partly well-founded: the plaintiff must provide specified particulars and amend its statement of defence as ordered; certain challenged phrases were struck out or deleted; some requests for particulars were deferred until after discovery/inspection because the facts were within the defendant's knowledge; tailored case management and discovery timetables were imposed; costs for the hearing were fixed on Category 2 Band B for a full day and liability was reserved to follow the outcome of the proceeding.
11 May 2010

SAITO OFFSHORE PTY LIMITED V WING HUNG PRINTING COMPANY LIMITED AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-004621

Citation

openlaw-b5bea120_7c56_4b4d_a9ef_2f41d94b2c2b.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the defendants had agreed and the court had ordered that a substantive defence be filed, the court directed the defendants to file and serve a compliant substantive statement of defence by 28 May 2010 despite the pending appeal, while preserving the protest to jurisdiction; costs to lie where they fall.
16 May 2008

MCCLUSKIE V NARESH HC AK CIV 2007-404-006152

Citation

openlaw-7ae403f7_7b55_4051_aa1d_eaff097c9380.pdf
Court

High Court

The defendant's pleading failed to comply with r130 by providing evasive denials and irrelevant scandalous matter that is likely to cause prejudice or delay under r186 and also breached prior interlocutory orders such that striking out is justified; however, in light of the defendant being self-represented the court granted a final opportunity to amend the defence by a fixed date before striking out occurs.
4 Oct 2007

SMITH AND GRACE & ORS V SMITH COVINGTON & ORS (HC AK CIV 2005-404-3020

Citation

openlaw-34d2a429_d17f_49af_b8f5_e88c81d9141b.pdf
Court

High Court

The court exercised its discretion to grant a limited one month extension to 19 November 2007 for the second-fourth defendants to file and serve Statements of Defence because refusing the extension would likely produce inferior pleadings and cause more delay, and the short extension would not dislocate the existing timetable; costs were awarded to the plaintiffs on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.
14 Sept 2007

AITKEN AND ANOR V ISHIMARU LIMITED FORMERLY KNOWN AS CORNERSTONE GROUP LIMITED HC AK CIV-2006-404-007953

Citation

openlaw-5cbbb9bd_e69e_4149_8557_941c1310020a.pdf
Court

High Court

Clause 11.1 is not an arbitration agreement because its obligation to arbitrate is contingent on attendance at a non‑compulsory mediation and the clause uses permissive language ('may') without creating reciprocal obligations; no mediation request had been made and the defendant provided only bare assertions of a dispute, so the Court refused the stay and ordered procedural steps to proceed in Court.