Shower Solutions 2016 Limited v Paradine

[2025] NZHC 3546

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2025-404-002186

[2025] NZHC 3546

UNDER

Section 124 of the District Courts Act 2016

IN THE MATTER OF

An appeal against a decision of the District Court

BETWEEN

SHOWER SOLUTIONS 2016 LIMITED

Appellant

AND

JOANNE RISA PARADINE

Respondent

Hearing:

19 November 2025

Appearances:

G J Beresford for the appellant

M R Taylor and E J Wotherspoon for the respondent

Judgment:

20 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF BLANCHARD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 November 2025 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:

B L Beresford Law, Auckland Simpson Western, Auckland

SHOWER SOLUTIONS 2016 LTD v PARADINE [2025] NZHC 3546 [20 November 2025]

[1]    Shower Solutions 2016 Ltd (Shower Solutions) appeals against a decision  of Judge K G Davenport KC in the District Court at North Shore dated 10 July 2025.1 The decision concerns a discovery application by Shower Solutions.

The District Court proceedings

[2]    The proceedings in the District Court relate to renovations to three bathrooms in a house in Dairy Flat, Auckland. Shower Solutions and Ms Paradine entered three contracts for Shower Solutions to renovate the bathrooms. The total price under the three contracts was around $230,000.

[3]    Ms Paradine has pleaded 27 alleged defects in relation to Shower Solutions’s work on two of the bathrooms. She further pleads that she validly cancelled all three contracts while the work was underway on the two bathrooms. Because of the cancellation, no work was ever conducted in relation to the third bathroom. At the time the contracts were allegedly cancelled, Ms Paradine had paid Shower Solutions approximately $110,000.

[4] In the proceeding, Ms Paradine makes claims under the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993, the Building Act 2004 and in contract. She seeks a refund of the full amount paid to Shower Solutions of approximately $110,000, together with costs of investigation of approximately $10,000, general damages of $25,000, plus interest and costs.

The District Court decision

[5]    Shower  Solutions  sought  discovery  of  a  large  number  of  categories     of documents.2 The Judge ordered Ms Paradine to provide some further discovery,3 but the application was largely unsuccessful. As Shower Solutions was “at best … modestly  successful”,4  the  Judge  ordered  Shower  Solutions  to   pay   costs   to Ms Paradine on a 2B basis with a 25 per cent reduction.5

1      Paradine v Shower Solutions 2016 Ltd [2025] NZDC 14812.

2 At [9].

3 At [31].

4 At [32].

5 At [33].

The appeal

[6]    Shower Solutions appeals against both the Judge’s decisions regarding discovery and on costs.

Discovery

[7]    The main thrust of Shower Solutions’s appeal relates to the refusal of the Judge to order discovery of documents that Shower Solutions submits are relevant to the quantum of Ms Paradine’s claim. Shower Solutions seeks discovery of documents concerned with the steps taken by Ms Paradine after she cancelled. Ms Paradine’s case is that the work by Shower Solutions was so defective that it all had to be demolished. New arrangements were then made to have work done by a replacement contractor. Shower Solutions seeks full discovery in relation to that work.

[8]    I discussed the relevance of this documentation with counsel for Shower Solutions, Mr Beresford, at some length at the hearing. Despite this, I was not able  to understand why Shower Solutions sees these documents as being relevant. As I see it, the focus of the trial will be on whether the work conducted by Shower Solutions was subject to the alleged 27 defects and what value, if any, the work had if it was subject to some or all of the alleged defects. The work that was done later, after cancellation, by the replacement contractor is not material to that analysis.

[9]    During the discussion, Mr Beresford referred to two categories of documents that clearly are relevant. These are text messages and emails regarding the 27 alleged defects and text messages and emails regarding materials used by Shower Solutions that were or could have been re-used when the work was carried out by the replacement contractor. Counsel for Ms Paradine, Mr Taylor, readily agreed that these documents are relevant. He said that documents of this kind had already been discovered, but he would double check to make sure that there is no documentation in these categories that has been omitted.

Costs

[10]   Mr Beresford submitted that the Judge’s decision to award costs against Shower Solutions was wrong. The application was appropriately brought, and the Judge ordered Ms Paradine to discover some documentation that would not otherwise have been discovered.

[11]   However, costs are discretionary, and I see no basis for disturbing the Judge’s decision when Shower Solutions’s application was largely unsuccessful.

Result

[12]The appeal is dismissed.

[13]   If the parties cannot agree in relation to costs, they should file memoranda   of no more than two pages each and I will determine costs on the papers.

Blanchard J