Winston Peters has awarded himself the first point in the legal fight against National MPs and staff in the case of an alleged privacy breach over his Superannuation details.

​Winston Peters is charging ahead with a legal battle against National Party politicians and staff over his Superannuation leak.

However, he has dropped his legal case against two journalists.

The deputy prime minister and NZ First leader alleges his privacy was breached by former government ministers and senior staff.

Last year, it emerged Peters' superannuation had been overpaid for several years. After he was made aware, Peters paid back $18,000.

READ MORE:

* Winston Peters looks to sue over pension leak

* Winston Peters' legal attack on journalists could further erode NZ's press freedom

* Mai Chen: No quick resolution in Winston Peters superannuation leak case

Following the leak, which led to news stories about the overpayments, he lodged legal proceedings, naming nine defendants.

The defendants named on the affidavit filed at the High Court were Ministry of Social Development chief executive Brendan Boyle, National leader Bill English and his former chief of staff Wayne Eagleson, former ministers Paula Bennett, Steven Joyce, and Anne Tolley.

The initial proceedings also named two journalists - Newsroom editor Tim Murphy and Newshub reporter Lloyd Burr - among the defendants, but Peters said "the application for pre-proceeding discovery against the two media intended defendants has been amicably resolved".

On Friday, he said the "first phase" of legal proceedings against six National Party "intended defendants" had concluded and would shortly continue to the second stage.

"They have unwittingly provided on oath information beyond what I was entitled to receive from the documents, which also provides enough information to formulate proceedings against those involved in the privacy breach."

On Friday, a National Party spokesman said Peters had withdrawn the current court papers against all named defendants in the National Party, and the court date had been vacated.

"We note that Mr Peters has withdrawn his action against all parties.

"We're completely relaxed about any further steps he may or may not take."

No further papers had been filed in their place, at this stage, the spokesman said.

However, Peters said he intended to continue with legal proceedings against the six National Party defendants.

The first stage of discovery had been completed, which had allowed Peters' lawyers to extract information as to how, why, and who leaked the information, he said, adding that he was happy with the information that had been uncovered.

It was "extremely difficult" to get this information without going through the legal process as the parties involved had been "acting behind closed doors", he said.

He refused to say what the "second phase" of the legal proceedings would involve, citing sub judice, and whether he would be seeking damages.

Peters said he did not know when the second stage would start, adding that the court had not yet scheduled a date.

Peters started his statement with a monologue about the right to privacy:

"In a free society there are no more fundamental elements than an individual's freedom of speech, their right to privacy, and for the Fourth Estate to operate freely," he said.

"However, those freedoms are not unfettered. They come with responsibilities. One cannot needlessly yell fire in a crowded picture theatre, breach another's privacy, or be at liberty to print untruths.

"When one or all of these pillars crumble, and as was said a long time ago, it behoves every person who values liberty of conscience for himself, to resist the invasion of it by others."

In regard to the initial naming of the Newshub and Newsroom journalists as defendants, Peters said he never attempted to breach journalistic privilege, and they were only named as defendants as part of the discovery process, "there was a wide range of information available about the misbehaviour of the perpetrators that I, as the plaintiff, was entitled to seek, and now have".

All those named as defendants have denied involvement in the leaking of his Superannuation payment details.