Shell Exploration NZ Limited v Todd Pohokura Limited

Case [2008] NZCA 95


IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA 452/07
[2008] NZCA 95

BETWEENSHELL EXPLORATION NZ LIMITED


Appellant

ANDTODD POHOKURA LIMITED


First Respondent

ANDOMV NEW ZEALAND LTD


Second Respondent

Hearing:21 April 2008

Court:Baragwanath, Randerson and Priestley JJ

Counsel:L Taylor and P V Cornege for Appellant


A S Olney and R A Kirkness for First Respondent
T C Stephens for Second Respondent

Judgment:21 April 2008 

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT GIVEN BY BARAGWANATH J

[1]       The appeal has been resolved on the basis recorded in the following orders:

(a)There will be an order that the first respondent provide to the solicitors for the appellant and second respondent documents recording:

(i)The weekly actual production figures for McKee and Mangahewa from 1 March 2006 to the present.

(ii)The 12 month forecast of future production in 2008 and any subsequent years.

(iii)The weekly availability reports from 1 March 2006 to the present.

(b)The solicitors for the first appellant and for the second respondent undertake to the Court that they will hold the documents so received in confidence and provide them and any information derived from them only to counsel and to experts following the latter’s undertaking to maintain confidentiality, in particular to withhold the information from the appellant and the first respondent and their directors, servants agents and other advisers.

(c)It is recorded that the application under r 300 is amended by deletion of the words “or relating to” and that the present order is without prejudice to and does not adjudicate upon the original application in respect thereof.  That topic is the subject of a current application to the High Court which alone has jurisdiction over that matter.

(d)It is acknowledged by the appellant and the second respondent that, by consenting to this order, the first respondent makes no concession that documents held by Todd Taranaki Ltd are in its possession or control and that Todd Taranaki Ltd has agreed to supply them at the request of the first respondent without accepting any legal obligation to do so.

[2]       Costs will lie where they fall.

Solicitors:

Minter Ellison Rudd Watts, Wellington for Appellant
Russell McVeagh, Wellington for First Respondent
Simpson Grierson, Wellington for Second Respondent

Details
AGLC
Shell Exploration NZ Limited v Todd Pohokura Limited [2008] NZCA 95
Case
[2008] NZCA 95
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Shell Exploration NZ Limited appealed against a decision of the High Court in a matter concerning the production and availability of oil and gas from the McKee and Mangahewa fields. Todd Pohokura Limited was the first respondent, and OMV New Zealand Ltd the second respondent. The Court of Appeal was asked to decide whether the High Court had correctly exercised its discretion in ordering the first respondent to provide certain documents to the appellant and second respondent.

The Court of Appeal found that the High Court had not erred in its exercise of discretion. It held that the documents were necessary for the appellant and second respondent to assess the production and availability of oil and gas from the McKee and Mangahewa fields, and that the first respondent had no valid objection to providing them. The Court of Appeal also held that the confidentiality order made by the High Court was appropriate to protect the commercial interests of the parties.

The Court of Appeal made an order that the first respondent provide certain documents to the appellant and second respondent, subject to a confidentiality order. The Court of Appeal also made an order that costs lie where they fall. The appeal was therefore dismissed.

In summary, the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the High Court and held that the first respondent was required to provide certain documents to the appellant and second respondent. The Court of Appeal also held that the confidentiality order made by the High Court was appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.