Legal Research
Cases
Houghton v Saunders

Houghton v Saunders

Case [2013] NZHC 1824 19 July 2013

Discovery & Disclosure

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Commercial Law

Consumer Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2008-409-348 [2013] NZHC 1824

BETWEEN ERIC MESERVE HOUGHTON Plaintiff

AND TIMOTHY 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: 1-3 July 2013

Counsel: A J Forbes QC and P A B Mills for plaintiff
A R Galbraith QC and D J Cooper for first defendants, except
Mr Magill
T C Weston QC for Mr Magill
A S Olney, D M Abricossow and C J Curran (3 July only) for second and third defendants
D H McLellan QC for fourth defendant
A C Challis for fifth defendant

Judgment: 19 July 2013

Reissued: 29 July 2013

HOUGHTON v SAUNDERS [2013] NZHC 1824 [19 July 2013]

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF DOBSON J

Contents

Summary ............................................................................................................................................ [3] First to third defendants’ applications for further and better discovery from the plaintiff ....... [4] First to third defendants’ application to uphold privilege in legal advice .................................. [28] Defendants’ application for further particulars of the statement of claim ................................. [52] Confidentiality order in respect of plaintiff’s affidavit from Ms Dunn ...................................... [89] Security for costs ............................................................................................................................. [98] Inclusion of claim for Hunter Hall ............................................................................................... [131] Costs ............................................................................................................................................... [149]

THE JUDGMENT ORIGINALLY ISSUED TO COUNSEL ONLY ON 19 JULY
2013 RAISED ISSUES ABOUT THE APPROPRIATE SCOPE OF ON-GOING CONFIDENTIALITY OF CERTAIN DETAILS. SUBSEQUENT TO RECEIPT OF MEMORANDA ON BEHALF OF THE PLAITNIFF AND THE FIRST DEFENDANTS , THE JUDGMENT WAS MADE AVAILABLE FOR DISTRIBUTION ON 29 JULY 2013. THE ONLY ALTERATION TO THE TEXT OF THE REASONING IS A GREATER LEVEL OF GENERALITY IN THE REFERENCES TO ENTITIES MENTIONED IN [113].

[1] On 1, 2 and 3 July 2013, I heard a sequence of arguments on interlocutory applications that were then outstanding. My decisions in respect of some of them inevitably have to be “work in progress” as the parties respond to the interim decisions I am able to make at this stage. Some of the issues argued have potential importance for the future of the proceedings, but answers are required promptly. I regret that other commitments have not allowed me to refine the reasons for my decisions more thoroughly. I am, however, entirely satisfied with those decisions and it is more important that the parties have the outcomes for their on-going preparations for trial.

[2] I confirm that further time will be available for advancing interlocutory issues on 6 August and 16 September 2013.

Summary

[3] The matters that were argued, and my decisions on them, are as follows:

(a) First, second and third defendants’ applications for further and better discovery ([4]–[27]): the opt-in forms are to be discovered. The plaintiff is not required to pay for transforming electronically stored data into a form readable for the defendants’…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Houghton v Saunders

Details

AGLC: Houghton v Saunders [2013] NZHC 1824
Case: [2013] NZHC 1824
Decision Date: 19 July 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Houghton v Saunders was heard by Dobson J, who delivered a reserved judgment on 19 July 2013. The case involved multiple defendants, including individual directors, Credit Suisse entities, and financial institutions. The plaintiff, Eric Meserve Houghton, sought to pursue a representative action on behalf of Feltex shareholders against various defendants for misleading or deceptive conduct under the Fair Trading Act 1986, as well as claims for negligence and breach of fiduciary duty. The court addressed several interlocutory applications, including discovery obligations, privilege claims, further particulars of the statement of claim, confidentiality orders, security for costs, and the inclusion of claims for Hunter Hall. The court ruled that opt-in forms were discoverable, and the plaintiff was not required to pay for transforming electronically stored data into a usable form. The court also allowed joint interest privilege for certain legal advice documents, but denied privilege for some documents claimed by Credit Suisse entities. Further particulars of the statement of claim were ordered, with specific deadlines set for their provision. The court granted additional security for costs, totalling $2 million, and denied the plaintiff's application to include Hunter Hall's claims at the first trial without joinder as a plaintiff.

Orders