[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]

Preface

WITH THE CONCURRENCE OF THE RULES COMMITTEE (which in this matter is the legislator) the Law Commission has examined the law of general discovery. In September 2001 it published a discussion paper (Reforming the Rules of General Discovery NZLC PP45). The essential issue addressed by that paper was whether and how the virtues of the existing rules as to general discovery could be preserved while at the same time eliminating waste and extravagance from the process. We were assisted by comments on the discussion paper and on the topic generally from:

Auckland District Law Society Courts Committee

David JA Cairns, Associate, B Cremades Y Asociados, Madrid, Spain

Chapman Tripp, Barristers & Solicitors, Wellington

District Court Civil Litigation & Case Processing Committee

Justice Doogue

JG Fogarty, QC, Christchurch

Andru Isac, School of Law, University of Canterbury

National Council of Women of New Zealand

New Zealand Law Society Civil Litigation and Tribunals Committee

Cheryl Y Simes, Barrister, Hamilton

Telecom New Zealand Limited

Duncan Webb, School of Law, University of Canterbury

Justice Hugh Williams

In chapters 1, 2 and 3 we set out our recommendations and the reasons therefor. Appendix A contains the relevant High Court Rules (Rules 293–312 and Rule 317A). Appendix B reproduces part 4 of our discussion paper made up of the comparative material which we have considered. In appendix C, by way of summarising our recommendations, we indicate the changes to the rules that we propose.

It became clear at a meeting held on 11 February 2002 with the Rules Committee to discuss a draft of this report that the Committee now contemplates substantial changes to the High Court Rules. The purpose of those changes is in broad terms the imposition of more intrusive case management requirements. It was put to the Law Commission (correctly we think) that the precise mechanics that we propose in this report do not entirely fit with those as yet unfinalised changes.

Matters being in that state of flux, we have thought it our most appropriate course to publish this report as it stands. The Rules Committee can then sort out the mechanics and decide the extent to which the substance of our recommendations is acceptable when it has made up its mind about the larger changes to civil processes that it currently has under discussion.

DF Dugdale was the Commissioner having the carriage of this project and Kerry Davis the researcher.