New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Subpoena

Legal area

Court

18 Oct 2023

COMMISSIONER OF POLICE v DOYLE [2023] NZHC 2911

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2911
Court

High Court

The Commissioner cannot remediate hearsay by merely making subpoenaed witnesses available for cross-examination when those witnesses have not sworn affidavits and r 9.75 has not been invoked; Part 19 originating applications require admissible affidavit evidence in accordance with the High Court Rules, and the proposed procedure does not convert out-of-court statements into admissible sworn testimony.
11 Jul 2023

JOHN KENNETH SLAVICH v DAVID BRIAN COLLINS [2023] NZHC 1810

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1810
Court

High Court

Registrar's refusal to issue the subpoena was upheld because interlocutory applications are governed by r7.27 which requires affidavit evidence unless a judge permits oral evidence, subpoenas under r9.52 are not granted as of right for interlocutory hearings and require leave, the hearing directions anticipated submissions only, and evidence regarding a judge's conduct in prior proceedings is not compellable under s74(d) of the Evidence Act 2006.
6 Jul 2023

KEEZZ LTD (NZCN 6836013) v TE WHATU ORA – HEALTH NEW ZEALAND [2023] NZHC 1744

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1744
Court

High Court

The Court awarded the defendant costs on a 2B basis with a 50% uplift applied to steps taken from 30 May 2021 (excluding costs for the subpoena, costs memoranda and sealing costs which remain at scale) and allowed most disbursements as reasonably necessary (including electronic discovery and expert fees) while disallowing costs for third counsel and reducing duplicate discovery allowances, resulting in an award of costs $101,216.50 and disbursements $74,500.90 (total $175,717.40).
13 Jul 2022

Metlifecare Retirement Villages Limited (Originating Application) [2022] NZHC 1646

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1646
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave because the application satisfied the statutory and rule criteria (s154 and r9.60), each proposed witness had relevant, likely significant evidence about product testing and the operation of the New Zealand business, and in-person evidence was warranted given the complexity and volume of documents which made remote evidence problematic.
12 Apr 2021

MAILLEY v SHAW [2021] NZHC 759

Citation

[2021] NZHC 759
Court

High Court

Rule 9.52 does not apply to a review of an associate judge's interlocutory decision because that review is not a 'trial'; attendance and cross-examination for interlocutory matters are discretionary matters for the judge under rr7.27 and 7.28 and require 'special circumstances', which were not established here; therefore the Registrar will not be required to issue a subpoena and Mr Shaw need not attend or be cross-examined for the purposes of the review hearing.
9 Apr 2021

SELLMAN v SLATER [2021] NZHC 752

Citation

[2021] NZHC 752
Court

High Court

Given the high public interest, the extent of prior interlocutory adjudication and that a judge‑alone trial had commenced, the public interest in transparency outweighed general privacy/confidentiality concerns as to the parties' affidavit material; inspection of affidavits filed by the parties was therefore permitted except for affidavits containing suppressed medical details of the first defendant and specified medical affidavits, but access to the affidavit and materials filed by non‑party British American Tobacco (NZ) Limited was declined because BAT was a peripheral non‑party whose appli…
16 Jul 2018

MACKENZIE v MACKENZIE & ORS [2018] NZHC 1744

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1744
Court

High Court

Subpoenas were set aside because (1) compelling Ian MacKenzie to give evidence would be oppressive and risk his health; (2) the documents and evidence sought by subpoena were at best marginally relevant or unnecessary given available accounting records and expert review, and the subpoenas represented an abusive, collateral attempt to obtain discovery the plaintiff had abandoned; therefore no admissible evidence that justifies the subpoenas would properly be given and their issue was oppressive and an improper use of process.
28 Aug 2017

Flujo Holdings Pty Limited v Merisant Company [2017] NZHC 2069

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2069
Court

High Court

On a realistic appraisal Flujo was the overall successful party; Flujo is awarded scale costs on a 2B basis for Merisant's applications but reduced by 30% to reflect Merisant's successful claim for a 40% contribution to actual costs in the lead up to the hearing; objections to Merisant's claimed costs for document inspection and subpoena were rejected as the time and steps were reasonably incurred.
11 Apr 2017

LEE v LEE [2017] NZHC 712

Citation

[2017] NZHC 712
Court

High Court

Davison J's clear order that non-provision of the ordered security for costs results in a stay must be given effect; the stay is maintained and a short unless order to file remaining affidavits is reasonable; it is inappropriate to direct the Registrar to sign a mortgage over trust property without evidence and opportunity for the co-trustee to be heard; indemnity costs for the withdrawn subpoena were not justified but a schedule 2B award is warranted.
11 Aug 2016

KAUR v THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2016] NZHC 1862

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1862
Court

High Court

Award costs 2B to respondents for the first interlocutory application (effectively withdrawn/subsumed) and award costs 2B to applicant for the second interlocutory application because the applicant obtained the substantive concession rendering cross-examination necessary on a limited ground; no uplift or indemnity costs awarded and no costs on costs, because respondent conduct and timetable confusion mitigated any discretionary increase.