Peters v Bennett

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-1122

[2019] NZHC 2601

BETWEEN

WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS

Plaintiff

AND

PAULA BENNETT

First Defendant

PETER HUGHES
Second Defendant

ANNE MERILYN TOLLEY
Third Defendant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL sued on

behalf of the MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Fourth Defendant

BRENDAN BOYLE

Fifth Defendant

Hearing:

11 October 2019

Appearances:

B Henry for Plaintiff

V Casey QC and N Wills for Second, Fourth and Fifth Defendants

Judgment:

11 October 2019

ORAL JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Application for answers to interrogatories

Solicitors:           Clifton Killip Lyon, Auckland

Kiely Thompson Caisely, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

Counsel:            B Henry/S Singh, Auckland

G Richards, Wellington B Gray QC, Auckland

V Casey QC, Wellington

PETERS v BENNETT [2019] NZHC 2601 [11 October 2019]

[1]        The fourth defendant, the Attorney-General, applies for orders requiring the plaintiff Mr Peters to answer interrogatories.

[2]        The fourth defendant delivered a notice on 16 August 2019. The plaintiff responded with answers on 6 September 2019. Some of the questions in the notice were answered. Others were not, hence the application for orders requiring answers to those interrogatories the fourth defendant considers have not been answered sufficiently or at all.

[3]        The interrogatories for which orders are now sought fall into a number of categories:

(a)questions arising out of the completion of Mr Peters’ application for superannuation in April 2010, and subsequent correspondence from the Ministry of Social Development (MSD) in March 2014;

(b)questions arising out of a meeting with an MSD staff member in July 2017;

(c)questions as to events after 26 July 2017, particularly directed at the overpayment of Mr Peters’ superannuation entitlement;

(d)questions about Mr Peters’ involvement with the application of the “no surprises” policy for Ministers;

(e)questions arising from newspaper reports of Mr Peters’ reported comments; and finally

(f)some questions arising from a pre-trial application in separate proceedings advanced by Mr Peters.

[4]        The application is formally opposed. In the notice of opposition the grounds of opposition are stated to be that:

(a)the plaintiff’s brief, which has been exchanged, includes all admissible evidence the plaintiff has regarding the questions. His evidence addresses the subject of the unanswered interrogatories;

(b)there is no prejudice in not providing the answer. Insofar as the questions are relevant and answers admissible, they will be dealt with in the course of the hearing and by cross-examination if necessary; and

(c)there are legitimate grounds for objection in accordance with High Court Rule (HCR) 8.40.

The scheme of interrogatories

[5]Interrogatories are provided for by Subpart 2 to Part 8 of the HCR.

[6]        The rules provide interrogatories may be issued by notice.1 The notice is then to be answered.2 The answers are to comply with requirements of HCR 8.39. Any objection to answering the interrogatories should be made in accordance with HCR 8.40.

[7]        A party served with a notice requiring them to answer has the ability to apply to the Court to limit the answers instead of objecting.3 Mr Peters did…