Strike out application — particular discovery — interrogatories — misleading and deceptive conduct — District Court Rules 2014, rr 8.4, 8.7, 8.8, & 15.1 — High Court Rules 2016 — Telecommunications Act 2001 — Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 9 & 43 — Red Eagle Corporation v Ellis [2010] NZSC 20 — South Pacific Manufacturing Co Limited v New Zealand Security Consultants & Investigations Limited [1992] 2 NZLR 282. The plaintiff sought damages against the first and second defendants after receiving a prank call that resulted in an unnecessary farm call-out. The plaintiff claimed $721.63, being the cost of the call-out, $7500, for the per-commencement discovery application, and $20,000 in general damages. The plaintiff received a call from the first defendant's cellphone for an urgent farm call-out approximately 80km away. The defendant operated a similar business to the plaintiff and sold the same brand of farm equipment. The plaintiff sought phone records from his telecommunications provider, confirming the call came from the defendant's cellphone. The defendant accepted that his phone made the prank call but maintained that he did not make the call himself. The defendant made an application to strike out the claims. The Judge declined to strike out the claims under the Fair Trading Act for misleading and deceptive conduct, but did strike out the claims of negligence on the basis that the imposition of a duty of care would be overly expansive. The Judge also struck out the claim for general damages due to lack of proof by the plaintiff. The Judge declined to make a tailored discovery order, instead directing that both parties complete standard discovery and that the plaintiff's claim for supplementary interrogatories be denied on the basis it was not properly filed according to District Court Rules. The Judge ordered costs on a 2B basis to the defendants with a 20 percent abatement reflecting that the two claims that were not struck out. Judgment Date: 30 November 2018.