Houghton v Saunders

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2008-409-348 [2014] NZHC 423

BETWEEN  ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON Plaintiff

ANDTIMOTHY ERNEST CORBETT SAUNDERS, SAMUEL JOHN MAGILL, JOHN MICHAEL FEENEY, CRAIG EDGEWORTH HORROCKS, PETER DAVID HUNTER, PETER THOMAS and JOAN WITHERS

First Defendants

CREDIT SUISSE PRIVATE EQUITY INC (FORMERLY CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON PRIVATE EQUITY INC)

Second Defendant

CREDIT SUISSE FIRST BOSTON ASIAN MERCHANT PARTNERS LP Third Defendant

FIRST NEW ZEALAND CAPITAL Fourth Defendant

FORSYTH BARR LIMITED Fifth Defendant

Hearing:                   4 March 2014

Counsel:                  A J Forbes QC and P A B Mills for plaintiff

A R Galbraith QC, D J Cooper and S V A East for first defendants

J B M Smith QC, A S Olney and C J Curran for second and third defendants

D H McLellan QC for fourth defendant
A C Challis and H N McIntosh for fifth defendant

Judgment:                10 March 2014

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS [2014] NZHC 423 [10 March 2014]

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ [5] Greg Meredith ................................................................................................................................... [8] Susan Newberry .............................................................................................................................. [26] Terence Harrison ............................................................................................................................. [31] John Blakemore ............................................................................................................................... [40] Peter Hall ......................................................................................................................................... [45] Arthur Lim ...................................................................................................................................... [52] Alan Coleman .................................................................................................................................. [57] Brian Russell .................................................................................................................................... [62] Andrew Harper ............................................................................................................................... [67] Application to amend the statement of claim................................................................................ [73] Costs ................................................................................................................................................. [83]

[1]      This judgment deals with the defendants’ pre-trial objections to admissibility of the plaintiff ’s evidence, and the plaintiff ’s application to amend the statement of claim.

[2]      The defendants have sought a pre-trial determination on numerous objections to the admissibility of evidence proposed to be given on behalf of the plaintiff.  With the exception of one brief (Mr Lim) the briefs for the relevant plaintiff witnesses were served between the end of November and early December 2013.  The trial is scheduled to begin on 17 March 2014 so the parties require a prompt answer.  The plaintiff’s counsel indicated during the hearing that they may well pursue challenges to certain aspects of the evidence proposed on behalf of the defendants, and that is a matter that may need to be addressed prior to the calling of at least the majority of evidence for the plaintiff.

[3]      A complication in dealing with the objections to admissibility now is that reply briefs on behalf of the plaintiff were due on 7 March 2014.   In a number of respects the response to the defendants’ criticisms included the prospect that features of the briefs  potentially rendering them  inadmissible could  be  cured  by further evidence to be provided in reply briefs.  That is hardly a conventional answer and the foreshadowed course is likely to be opposed.  Reply briefs are intended to address matters in the defendants’ briefs that could not reasonably be anticipated in the

plaintiff’s original briefs, whereas the present objections raise points under the Evidence Act 2006 (the Act) that are unrelated to the content of the defendants’ briefs.  However, that is not a sufficient basis for rejecting the prospect of evidentiary objections being addressed, so the prospect lessens the ability to…