PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL v FORTRESS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1364

PALMERSTON NORTH CITY COUNCIL v FORTRESS INFORMATION SYSTEMS LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1364

The application for an interim suppression order was dismissed because, although publication was likely prejudicial to FISL, the prejudice was not of sufficient weight to overcome the high threshold for non‑publication given (a) the judgment was already in the public domain, (b) the decision was interim and made without notice, and (c) the public interest in disclosure and opportunity for FISL to present its case meant suppression was not justified.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 1364
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: Palmerston North City Council; Defendant/respondent: Fortress Information Systems Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Interim Freezing Order Application (civil) / Interim Suppression Application Hearing Following Without Notice Freezing Order
Outcome
Application for interim suppression order dismissed
Legal Topics
Freezing Order, Interim Suppression Order, Open Justice, Reputational Harm, Without Notice Orders
Civil Procedure Injunctions Media Law Freezing Order Interim Suppression Order Open Justice Reputational Harm Without Notice Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Palmerston North City Council

Plaintiff/applicant

Fortress Information Systems Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Interim Freezing Order Application (civil) / Interim Suppression Application Hearing Following Without Notice Freezing Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim suppression order should be granted to restrain publication of a judgment arising from a without‑notice freezing order
  2. 2 Whether prior publication negates the need for further suppression
  3. 3 Whether reputational or commercial prejudice to the defendant meets the high threshold for non‑publication orders

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an interim suppression order was dismissed because, although publication was likely prejudicial to FISL, the prejudice was not of sufficient weight to overcome the high threshold for non‑publication given (a) the judgment was already in the public domain, (b) the decision was interim and made without notice, and (c) the public interest in disclosure and opportunity for FISL to present its case meant suppression was not justified.

Court Disposition

Application for interim suppression order dismissed

Orders

  • Application for interim suppression order declined
  • Existing without‑notice freezing order for $675,958.40 remains in effect (order dated 8 June 2020, enduring to 13 July 2020)