-
Rae v Commissioner of Police
[2024] NZHC 3417
Citation 1
…26 High Court judgment, above n 1, at [21], [41] and [62]. 27 At [41]. 28 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [62].…
-
Taylor v Vernon
[2024] NZHC 2449
Citation 2
…45 At [13.29] and [13.30]–[13.34], referencing Nina Khouri “Mediation” [2021] NZ L Rev 169 at 195; Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34] and [45]; Body Corporate 212050 v Covekinloch Auckland Ltd (in liq) [2017] NZHC 2642 at [94]; and TPT Forests Ltd v Penfold [2022] NZEmpC 236 at [31], but notin…
-
Nottingham v Attorney-General
[2024] NZHC 2410
Citation 3
…3 Kidd v Van Heeren (1997) 11 PRNZ 422 (CA). 4 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [63]. 5 Roebuck v Liddle [2023] NZHC 1479 at [33]. 6 Sleeman v ANZ Banking Group (NZ LTD) (1994) 7 PRNZ 508 (HC) at 510.…
-
Martin v Martin
[2024] NZHC 1399
Citation 4
(Para 46)
…9 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [46]; Fitzgerald J did not waive the privilege applying to documents relating to a “without prejudice save as to costs” offer that had been made by one of the parties to resolve family proceedings. 10 Sheppard Industries Ltd v Specialized Bicycle Components Inc…
-
Wakefield v Network Waitaki Limited
[2024] NZHC 97
Citation 5
(Para 32)
…NZEmpC 140. 6 Woolley v Marlborough District Council [2023] NZHC 3840 at [110], citing S mith v Smith [2016] NZHC 1197 at [32]–[33]. 7 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [63]. 8 Helen & Lucy Enterprises Ltd v Steve Taylor & Associates North Shore Limited [2019] NZHC 2903 at [54].…
-
PricewaterhouseCoopers v Zag Limited
[2023] NZHC 1470
Citation 6
(Para 46)
…aw Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.94]. 32 See Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 1229. 33 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238 at [46]. 34 At [34].…
-
Waterfall Park Developments Limited v Hadley
[2022] NZHC 2221
Citation 7
…10 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661. 11 At [35], citing Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Co , above n 8, at 2448-2449 per Robert Walker LJ. 12 At [36], citing Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd , above n 3, at [27] per Lord Clarke. 13 At [36].…
-
Waterfall Park Developments Ltd v Hadley
[2022] NZHC 2211
Citation 8
…10 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661. 11 At [35], citing Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Co , above n 8, at 2448-2449 per Robert Walker LJ. 12 At [36], citing Oceanbulk Shipping and Trading SA v TMT Asia Ltd , above n 3, at [27] per Lord Clarke. 13 At [36].…
-
Bartletts Creek Vineyard Ltd Partnership v Vinlink Marlborough Ltd
[2022] NZHC 1012
Citation 9
…10 Bradbury v Westpac Banking Corp [2009] NZCA 234, [2009] 3 NZLR 400 at [83]. See also a review of the relevant authorities in Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]– [42]. 11 Unilever Plc v The Procter & Gamble Co [2000] 1 WLR 2436 (CA) at 2444.…
-
Little v Little
[2022] NZHC 601
Citation 10
(Para 34)
…8 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]–[42].…
-
Rabobank New Zealand Ltd v Phillips
[2022] NZHC 3390
Citation 11
(Para 34)
…58 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]–[53]; and Gibbs (as beneficiary of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) v Windmeyer (as trustee of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) [2021] NZHC 2582 at [73]–[77] and [86]–[89]. 59 Law Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.…
-
Christian v Bain
[2021] NZHC 3390
Citation 12
(Para 34)
…58 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661 at [34]–[53]; and Gibbs (as beneficiary of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) v Windmeyer (as trustee of the Ruby Cove Legacy Trust) [2021] NZHC 2582 at [73]–[77] and [86]–[89]. 59 Law Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.…
-
Gibbs v Windmeyer
[2021] NZHC 2582
Citation 13
…13 Smith v Shaw [2020] NZHC 238, [2020] 3 NZLR 661. 14 Law Commission The 2013 Review of the Evidence Act 2006 (NZLC R127, 2013) at [10.34]– [10.55]. 15 Smith v Shaw , above n 13, at [34]. 16 Ms Bruton in fact uses the term “serious impropriety”. That seems to be based on Sheppard Industries Ltd v Specialised Bicy…