New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Supplementary briefs

Legal area

Court

5 May 2023

BODY CORPORATE 406198 & ORS v ARGON CONSTRUCTION LTD & ORS [2023] NZHC 1072

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1072
Court

High Court

Under r 9.8 the Court exercised its discretion to admit the plaintiffs' supplementary/reply expert briefs from Mr August and Mr Hakin because the evidence was directly material to a central issue (scope of remedial works), arose in response to defendants' expert evidence, conferral had occurred, prejudice to defendants was minimal and manageable, and the interests of justice favored admission without adjournment.
26 Aug 2020

REBNIK PROPERTIES LIMITED v DOBBS [2020] NZHC 2187

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2187
Court

High Court

The court admitted most of Mr Dobbs' late supplementary brief because the delay was partly explained and the plaintiffs would not be unduly prejudiced given the nature of the material and the ability of experts to address it; however several paragraphs were excluded as inadmissible submissions, repetition or opinion and the court deferred decision on Mr Hanlon's supplementary brief pending expert evidence and assessment of prejudice; plaintiffs awarded costs for the application.
6 Nov 2017

FITZGERALD v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2717

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2717
Court

High Court

Leave to admit the supplementary brief of Craig Brian Lewis (dated 21 September 2017) was granted because admission was within the Court's discretion under r 9.8, was in the interests of justice, caused little prejudice in light of the trial being vacated and rescheduled and because the material relates to matters within the plaintiffs' knowledge and allows opportunity for reply.
2 Nov 2017

FITZGERALD v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2705

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2705
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave for the defendant to adduce the supplementary brief of the newly-engaged geotechnical expert (Donald Bruggers) because his evidence addressed a crucial issue and the interests of justice required its admission; prejudice from lateness was mitigated by vacating and adjourning the trial to permit the plaintiffs time to obtain expert advice. The Court reserved decision on leave for the supplementary brief of Craig Lewis to consider it further.
27 May 2016

SIGNAL v BERRY & ORS [2016] NZHC 1126

Citation

[2016] NZHC 1126
Court

High Court

Leave to file the proposed supplementary briefs was granted because vacating the original fixture and the availability of a substantially later trial date materially reduced any prejudice to the defendants; the discretionary test under r 9.8 is the interests of justice and, on the facts, allowing the briefs was justified while costs on the application were declined given the plaintiffs were granted an indulgence.

New Zealand Case Law

BODY CORPORATE 406198 & ORS v ARGON CONSTRUCTION LTD & ORS [2023] NZHC 1072

REBNIK PROPERTIES LIMITED v DOBBS [2020] NZHC 2187

FITZGERALD v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2717

FITZGERALD v IAG NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2705

SIGNAL v BERRY & ORS [2016] NZHC 1126