FUJI XEROX NEW ZEALAND LTD & ORS v WHITTAKER & ORS [2018] NZHC 78

FUJI XEROX NEW ZEALAND LTD & ORS v WHITTAKER & ORS [2018] NZHC 78

The NBR's application for access to the pleadings was dismissed as premature because the pleadings were not finalised and the defendants' defences were expected to be substantially amended after discovery; the need for orderly and fair administration of justice outweighed the public interest in access at this pre-close-of-pleadings stage. The second defendant's interim name-suppression application was dismissed because identifying particulars were already in the public domain, although specific private family details not in the public domain were permanently suppressed. The Court also held that media editors/reporters should not assume the role of counsel as a matter of course and...

Citation
[2018] NZHC 78
Parties
First Plaintiff: Fuji Xerox New Zealand Limited; Second Plaintiff: Fuji Xerox Finance Limited; Third Plaintiff: Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Limited; First Defendant: Neil Whittaker; Second Defendant: Mark Donald Allright; Third Defendant: Gavin Pollard
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
9 February 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Litigation Interlocutory Media and Privacy Applications / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Access to Court Documents and Interim Name Suppression (pre Trial, Pleadings Not Closed)
Outcome
NBR's application for access to court documents dismissed as premature; Mr Allright's interlocutory application for interim name suppression dismissed; limited permanent suppression granted for specified private family details; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
Access to Court Documents, Open Justice, Name Suppression, Representation by Non Lawyers, Costs
Civil Procedure Media Law Privacy Law Court Administration Access to Court Documents Open Justice Name Suppression Representation by Non Lawyers +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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Fuji Xerox New Zealand Limited

First Plaintiff

Fuji Xerox Finance Limited

Second Plaintiff

Fuji Xerox Asia Pacific Pte Limited

Third Plaintiff

Neil Whittaker

First Defendant

Mark Donald Allright

Second Defendant

Gavin Pollard

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Litigation Interlocutory Media and Privacy Applications / Interlocutory Applications Regarding Access to Court Documents and Interim Name Suppression (pre Trial, Pleadings Not Closed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the National Business Review is entitled to access the parties' statements of claim and defence under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017
  2. 2 Whether interim name suppression should be granted for the second defendant (Mr Allright)
  3. 3 Whether non-lawyer media representatives may appear in court on behalf of the NBR

Ratio Decidendi

The NBR's application for access to the pleadings was dismissed as premature because the pleadings were not finalised and the defendants' defences were expected to be substantially amended after discovery; the need for orderly and fair administration of justice outweighed the public interest in access at this pre-close-of-pleadings stage. The second defendant's interim name-suppression application was dismissed because identifying particulars were already in the public domain, although specific private family details not in the public domain were permanently suppressed. The Court also held that media editors/reporters should not assume the role of counsel as a matter of course and...

Court Disposition

NBR's application for access to court documents dismissed as premature; Mr Allright's interlocutory application for interim name suppression dismissed; limited permanent suppression granted for specified private family details; costs reserved.

Orders

  • The NBR's media application for access to court documents dated 6 November 2018 is dismissed. The NBR has leave to apply again for the same or a similar order in anticipation of the close of pleadings date, or in the event of any other material change of circumstances.
  • Mr Allright's interlocutory application for interim name suppression dated 17 October 2017 is dismissed.