Woolley v Marlborough District Council - [2025] NZCA 589

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA749/2024

[2025] NZCA 589

BETWEEN PHILIP JOHN WOOLLEY
Appellant
AND MARLBOROUGH DISTRICT COUNCIL
Respondent

Hearing:	21 July 2025
Court:	Mallon, Powell and Cull JJ
Counsel:	P A Morten and M A Robertson for Appellant
N Ravaji and A C Harpur for Respondent

Table of contents

Para No.

Introduction	[1]
Background	[3]
Judge’s findings	[5]
Relevant discovery rules	[9]
Fresh evidence	[14]
Issues	[16]
Overview	[17]
Issue One: searches of the Council’s database	[19]
Background	[19]
Judge’s decision	[20]
Parties’ submissions	[26]
Discussion	[29]
Conclusion	[37]
Issue Two: files from Radich Law	[38]
Background	[38]
Judge’s decision	[43]
Discussion	[46]
Conclusion	[50]
Issue Three: documents held by engineering consultant	[51]
Background	[51]
Judge’s decision	[52]
Parties’ submissions	[55]
Conclusion	[57]
Issue Four: Four categories of metadata	[58]
Location of the soil sample	[61]
Interference and conspiracy allegations	[64]

1.	Site visit notes and farm inspection reports	[71]
2.	Soil sample test results	[81]
3.	Abatement notices	[89]
4.	Public notification decision	[94]

Conclusion	[100]
Overview summary	[101]
Result	[103]
Introduction

This appeal concerns the scope of discovery in proceedings claiming damages

for tortious interference in contractual relations (two causes of action), intention to

injure by unlawful means (unlawful means conspiracy), negligence and breach of

statutory duty.

Mr Woolley appeals two separate judgments of Associate Judge Paulsen. We

refer to them as the Main Judgment[1] and the Metadata Judgment.[2] Mr Woolley

[1] Woolley v Marlborough District Council [2023] NZHC 3840 [Main Judgment].

[2] Woolley v Marlborough District Council [2024] NZHC 1647 [Metadata Judgment].

contends that the Judge erred in finding that the Marlborough District Council (the

Council) has complied with its discovery obligations under the High Court Rules

2016 (HCR). The Council opposes the appeal.

Background

The factual background was summarised in the Main Judgment, which we

gratefully adopt:[3]

[3] Main Judgment, above n 1. We note that Mr Woolley says the first sentence of [11] is incorrect,

[10] In 2010, Mr Woolley was granted resource consent for a dairy

operation at Glenmae. The resource consent contained a condition requiring
a certificate from the designing engineer of the effluent system to confirm it
was installed and functioned according to the approval. No effluent was to be
discharged until the certificate was received by the Council.
[11] In 2012, Mr Woolley designed and built two effluent ponds himself.

An engineer did not certify the ponds. In June 2013, the Council applied to
the Environment Court for an enforcement order which was granted on 4 April
2014. Mr Woolley was ordered to cease operating the milking sheds on
Glenmae until the effluent disposal system had been certified. The engineer’s
certificate was to be provided to the Council and the Environment Court by
6 June 2014. On 9 June 2014, the Environment Court refused an application
by Mr Woolley for an extension of time to comply with the enforcement order.
In July 2014, Mr Woolley and his contract milker started milking…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Woolley v Marlborough District Council and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZCA 589
Decision Date: 7 November 2025 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal, Philip John Woolley appeals against the Marlborough District Council’s compliance with its discovery obligations under the High Court Rules 2016. The appeal concerns the scope of discovery in proceedings claiming damages for tortious interference in contractual relations, conspiracy, negligence, and breach of statutory duty. Mr Woolley contends that the Judge erred in finding that the Marlborough District Council (the Council) has complied with its discovery obligations. The Court of Appeal considers four issues: (1) whether the Council has complied with its discovery obligations; (2) whether searches of files held by the Council’s solicitors met its discovery obligations; (3) whether the Council’s searches for records held by a third party, its engineering consultant, met its discovery obligations; and (4) whether an order for particular discovery should be made in respect of the metadata in four categories of documents stored in the Council’s document management system. The Court of Appeal upholds Mr Woolley’s appeal in respect of the first and fourth issues. In relation to the first issue, the Court finds that the Council’s searches were insufficient to capture relevant documents with other iterations and misspellings of “Woolley” or “Glenmae” or references to the other farms owned by Mr Woolley. The Court allows the appeal in relation to the fourth issue, holding that the Council is to discover the metadata in respect of the five site reports on which the Judge found there was an arguable case and the metadata for the other three categories. The appeal is allowed, and the Court makes orders for further and particular discovery.

Orders