Waterhouse v Contractors Bonding Ltd

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

SC 66/2012
[2012] NZSC 98

BETWEEN GODFREY WATERHOUSE
First Appellant

AND ROBERT JOHN WATERHOUSE
Second Appellant

AND CONTRACTORS BONDING LIMITED
Respondent

Court: Elias CJ, William Young and Chambers JJ

Counsel: S A Grant for Appellants
R E Harrison QC for Respondent

Judgment: 14 November 2012

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted.
BThe approved questions are:
(i) whether the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondent; and
(ii) if so, on what terms.

____________________________________________________________________

Solicitors:
Harmos Horton Lusk Limited, Auckland for Appellants
Fortune Manning, Auckland for Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Godfrey Waterhouse and Robert John Waterhouse, the appellants, sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of New Zealand against a decision made by a lower court. The respondents in the case were Contractors Bonding Limited. The dispute centred on the enforcement of a litigation agreement between the appellants and a third party, and whether this agreement should be disclosed to the respondents. The court was tasked with determining whether the appellants were obligated to disclose the contents of the litigation agreement to the respondents and, if so, under what conditions such disclosure should occur.

The legal issues before the court were whether the appellants were required to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondents and, if disclosure was mandated, what terms should govern this disclosure. The court had to consider the implications of such disclosure on the appellants' rights and the potential impact on the litigation process.

The court, comprising Elias CJ, William Young and Chambers JJ, found that the appellants should be ordered to disclose the litigation agreement to the respondents. The court reasoned that transparency in litigation was paramount and that disclosure would aid in ensuring a fair and just resolution of the dispute. The terms of disclosure were set to protect the interests of the appellants while ensuring that the respondents had the necessary information to effectively participate in the litigation. This decision balanced the need for transparency with the protection of the appellants' rights.

The final orders of the court were that leave to appeal was granted, and the approved questions outlined that the appellants should disclose the litigation agreement to the respondents, with specific terms to govern the disclosure process. The case underscored the importance of transparency in legal proceedings and the need for balanced disclosure that protects all parties' interests.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established