New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Trial timetabling

Legal area

Court

29 Jun 2022

BODY CORPORATE 207624 v GRIMSHAW & CO [2022] NZHC 1510

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1510
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was declined because Grimshaw's contention that privilege had been waived was speculative and not a bona fide arguable case given settled law that privilege is not waived by a brief until evidence is given; granting leave so close to a four‑week trial would likely prejudice the trial and impose disproportionate cost and delay, while any prejudice to Grimshaw can be addressed at trial if the advice is later put in issue.
21 Dec 2021

BODY CORPORATE 366567 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3578

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3578
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to pursue discovery of building consent related materials and to serve updated quantum evidence because those applications engaged ongoing discovery obligations, potential relevance, and proportionality considerations that justified relief despite proximity to trial; the Court refused leave for further particulars of betterment, broader late reply evidence and interrogatories because the applications were too late, would cause significant prejudice and disruption to trial preparation, and the plaintiffs had not sought particulars or replies within a proper timeframe.
27 May 2021

BODY CORPORATE 384825 v RALSTON & ORS [2021] NZHC 1207

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1207
Court

High Court

Leave to adduce the five supplementary briefs was granted because the material was highly relevant, confined largely to four of thirteen pleaded defects, did not change pleaded liability, was served well before defendants' evidential timetable and trial, and the plaintiffs' experts compiled the material promptly such that defendants can reasonably respond; to address any prejudice the trial start date was deferred by three weeks to 18 October 2021 and the Registry directed to reserve the week of 11 October 2021 for judicial familiarisation and possible site visits.
16 Apr 2019

BODY CORPORATE 417948 AND OTHERS NAMED AT SCHEDULE 1 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL v WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION [2019] NZCA 113

Citation

[2019] NZCA 113
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was granted because the question of the correct application of r 7.6 to complex building remediation cases is arguable, the applicants put forward new evidence not before the High Court, the allocated fixture was more than a year away so delay from hearing the appeal would be limited, and the issue is of sufficient importance to justify leave.
21 Sept 2009

JUNG V TEMPLETON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5383

Citation

openlaw-a6e964e7_9d3d_449b_8786_5ba3a31737b7.pdf
Court

High Court

The court granted leave to the defendant to issue subpoenas to compel attendance of mediation attendees and ordered that plaintiffs serve witness statements by 25 September with a list of documents, defendant to serve witness statements by 15 October, and an agreed bundle to be filed by 3pm on 16 October; if witnesses do not co-operate their evidence may be called orally; costs of the application are reserved to the trial judge and further issues are to be referred to the trial judge.

New Zealand Case Law

BODY CORPORATE 207624 v GRIMSHAW & CO [2022] NZHC 1510

BODY CORPORATE 366567 v AUCKLAND COUNCIL [2021] NZHC 3578

BODY CORPORATE 384825 v RALSTON & ORS [2021] NZHC 1207

BODY CORPORATE 417948 AND OTHERS NAMED AT SCHEDULE 1 OF THE NOTICE OF APPEAL v WATTS & HUGHES CONSTRUCTION [2019] NZCA 113

JUNG V TEMPLETON HC AK CIV 2007-404-5383