WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NZ LTD [2022] NZHC 2965

WHITE v JAMES HARDIE NZ LTD [2022] NZHC 2965

The application for wholesale access to trial evidence and related memoranda was declined as presently framed because it was overbroad, procedurally deficient, and failed to identify or address privacy, contact with plaintiffs, commercial sensitivity and disclosure challenges; however the applicant is entitled to the formal court record as of right (court index, minutes, judgments) and to submissions made at trial, and may file a refined, narrowed application addressing specified matters (scope, reasons, plaintiff contact, treatment of sensitive and commercially confidential material, and disputed evidence).

Citation
[2022] NZHC 2965
Parties
Plaintiffs: KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1; First Defendant: JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED; Second Defendant: STUDORP LIMITED; Third Defendant: JAMES HARDIE NZ HOLDINGS LIMITED; Fourth Defendant: RCI HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED; Fifth Defendant: JAMES HARDIE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED; Sixth Defendant: JAMES HARDIE RESEARCH PTY LIMITED; Seventh Defendant: JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Class Action (product Liability/representative Proceeding) / Post Trial Access Application Under Rr 8 and 11 of the Senior Courts (access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 Following Settlement After Plaintiffs' Case Was Presented
Outcome
Application declined in its current form; limited access granted to specified parts of the court record and leave granted to file a refined application addressing specific safeguards and scope
Legal Topics
Open Justice, Suppression Orders, Judicial Balancing Under Access Rules, Litigation Funding, Discovery and Document Disclosure
Civil Procedure Access to Court Documents Class Actions Privacy and Confidentiality Open Justice Suppression Orders Judicial Balancing Under Access Rules Litigation Funding +1 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 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

KAREN LOUISE WHITE AND THE PERSONS LISTED IN SCHEDULE 1

Plaintiffs

JAMES HARDIE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

First Defendant

STUDORP LIMITED

Second Defendant

JAMES HARDIE NZ HOLDINGS LIMITED

Third Defendant

RCI HOLDINGS PTY LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

JAMES HARDIE AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

Fifth Defendant

JAMES HARDIE RESEARCH PTY LIMITED

Sixth Defendant

JAMES HARDIE INDUSTRIES PLC

Seventh Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Class Action (product Liability/representative Proceeding) / Post Trial Access Application Under Rr 8 and 11 of the Senior Courts (access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 Following Settlement After Plaintiffs' Case Was Presented

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether and to what extent media may access trial evidence and related court documents after a settled class action under rr 8 and 11 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017
  2. 2 How to balance the principle of open justice against privacy, confidentiality, and orderly administration of justice where the plaintiffs have not had a final determination and some evidence discloses personal trauma
  3. 3 Procedural adequacy of the request (scope, notice to parties, identification of sensitive material)

Ratio Decidendi

The application for wholesale access to trial evidence and related memoranda was declined as presently framed because it was overbroad, procedurally deficient, and failed to identify or address privacy, contact with plaintiffs, commercial sensitivity and disclosure challenges; however the applicant is entitled to the formal court record as of right (court index, minutes, judgments) and to submissions made at trial, and may file a refined, narrowed application addressing specified matters (scope, reasons, plaintiff contact, treatment of sensitive and commercially confidential material, and disputed evidence).

Court Disposition

Application declined in its current form; limited access granted to specified parts of the court record and leave granted to file a refined application addressing specific safeguards and scope

Orders

  • Access granted to the formal court record as of right including the court index, minutes, and the judgments
  • Access granted to opening submissions and any further submissions made by counsel during the trial