CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v NZ TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION CHARITABLE TRUST (No. 2) [2019] NZHC 2971

CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v NZ TRUSTEES ASSOCIATION CHARITABLE TRUST (No. 2) [2019] NZHC 2971

Refusal of suppression because applicant failed to identify specific adverse consequences from publication that meet the high threshold to justify departing from open justice; mere embarrassment or speculative harm to reputation is insufficient and publication serves public interest and deterrence under the Act.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 2971
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs; First Defendant: NZ Trustees Association Charitable Trust; Second Defendant/applicant: Errol Bruce Anderson
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
8 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Regulatory Enforcement (unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007) / Application for Name Suppression Following Judgment
Outcome
Application for name suppression refused
Legal Topics
Name Suppression, Pecuniary Penalty, Enforceable Undertaking, Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007, Public Interest
Civil Law Privacy Open Justice Regulatory Enforcement Electronic Communications Name Suppression Pecuniary Penalty Enforceable Undertaking +2 more

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs

Plaintiff/respondent

NZ Trustees Association Charitable Trust

First Defendant

Errol Bruce Anderson

Second Defendant/applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Regulatory Enforcement (unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007) / Application for Name Suppression Following Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether name suppression should be granted to the second defendant
  2. 2 Whether publication would cause specific adverse consequences justifying departure from open justice
  3. 3 Balancing open justice and public interest against individual embarrassment and reputational harm

Ratio Decidendi

Refusal of suppression because applicant failed to identify specific adverse consequences from publication that meet the high threshold to justify departing from open justice; mere embarrassment or speculative harm to reputation is insufficient and publication serves public interest and deterrence under the Act.

Court Disposition

Application for name suppression refused

Orders

  • Application for suppression of Errol Bruce Anderson's name is refused