A V B HC AK CIV 2007-404-4334

A V B HC AK CIV 2007-404-4334

The injunctions were justified because the appellant had used material disclosed for litigation purposes in breach of the implied duty of confidence and there was a real risk of repetition which justified restraining conduct that would also amount to contempt of a suppression order; further, the circumstances were...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-b6018022_0195_4157_b8ea_26a1fd5e1f5a.pdf
Parties
Appellant: A; Respondent: B
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
31 October 2007
Procedural Posture
High Court Appeal From District Court / Judgment on Appeal (oral Judgment Delivered 31 October 2007)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; District Court orders upheld
Legal Topics
Suppression Order, Ex Parte Interim Injunction, Confidentiality of Disclosed Materials, Contempt Versus Breach of Confidence, Legal Services Act 2000 S40 Exceptional Circumstances, Costs Assessment
Civil Litigation Injunctions Confidentiality Contempt of Court Costs Law Suppression Order Ex Parte Interim Injunction Confidentiality of Disclosed Materials +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A

Appellant

B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

High Court Appeal From District Court / Judgment on Appeal (oral Judgment Delivered 31 October 2007)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an ex parte interim injunction and final injunction restraining disclosure of suppressed convictions was justified
  2. 2 Whether publication by the appellant of material disclosed for litigation constituted breach of confidence and/or contempt
  3. 3 Whether an adverse costs order could be made against a legally aided person absent exceptional circumstances under s40(2) Legal Services Act 2000

Ratio Decidendi

The injunctions were justified because the appellant had used material disclosed for litigation purposes in breach of the implied duty of confidence and there was a real risk of repetition which justified restraining conduct that would also amount to contempt of a suppression order; further, the circumstances were sufficiently exceptional under s40(2) Legal Services Act 2000 to permit adverse costs orders against a legally aided person, so the District Court's injunctions and costs awards were upheld.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; District Court orders upheld

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.
  • The District Court's injunctions and suppression order are confirmed and made permanent; files of this Court and the District Court are not to be searched and no report is to be made other than the anonymised judgment.