ASB BANK LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 3042
There is no general presumption against access to pleadings at the pre-hearing stage; the court must apply the evaluative exercise in r 3.16 and, having weighed the relevant factors (complete pleadings, no unfairness, strong public interest in taxation matters and open justice), permission to inspect the statement...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2013] NZHC 3042
- Parties
- Plaintiff: ASB Bank Limited; Defendant: Commissioner of Inland Revenue
- Court
- High Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 18 November 2013
- Procedural Posture
- Taxation (tax Administration Act 1994) / Pre Hearing; Application for Access to Pleadings Under High Court Rules Rr 3.11 3.16
- Outcome
- Access granted to the statement of claim and statement of defence
- Legal Topics
- Disclosure of Pleadings, Public Access to Court Records, Open Justice, Application of High Court Rules R 3.11 3.16
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
ASB Bank Limited
Plaintiff
Commissioner of Inland Revenue
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Taxation (tax Administration Act 1994) / Pre Hearing; Application for Access to Pleadings Under High Court Rules Rr 3.11 3.16
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether permission should be granted to inspect the statement of claim and statement of defence prior to hearing
- 2 Whether there is a presumption against access to pleadings at the pre-hearing stage
- 3 How to apply the evaluative exercise required by High Court Rules r 3.16
Ratio Decidendi
There is no general presumption against access to pleadings at the pre-hearing stage; the court must apply the evaluative exercise in r 3.16 and, having weighed the relevant factors (complete pleadings, no unfairness, strong public interest in taxation matters and open justice), permission to inspect the statement of claim and statement of defence is granted.
Court Disposition
Access granted to the statement of claim and statement of defence
Orders
- Permission granted to Mr Gareth Vaughn of Interest.co.nz to access (inspect and copy) the statement of claim and the statement of defence in this proceeding
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
ASB BANK LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 3042 [18 November 2013]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2013-404-4038[2013] NZHC 3042IN THE MATTER OF the Tax Administration Act 1994BETWEEN ASB BANK LIMITEDPlaintiffAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEDefendantHearing: On the papersJudgment: 18 November 2013JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN JThis judgment was delivered by me on 18 November 2013 at 12.30 pm pursuant toRule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.Registrar/ Deputy Registrar[1] Mr Gareth Vaughn of Interest.co.nz a new media outlet, requests access to the statement of claim and statement of defence. Because this proceeding has yet to reach the hearing phase, there is no presumption in favour of access. Rather Rules 3.11 – 3.16 govern this application. The permission of the Court is necessary for Mr Vaughn to obtain access to these documents.[2] The views of the parties have been sought. The plaintiff does not oppose the application. Counsel for the Commissioner points out that the proceeding is at a very early stage and that there is a presumption against access at this time. They say that the default position is that the Court will not usually grant access, citing Yarrow v Finnigan1 and Hotchin v APN New Zealand Ltd2 as authority for that proposition.[3] I am satisfied that there is no general presumption against the grant of access. Rather, as the authorities relied upon by the Commissioner make clear, the Court must undertake the evaluative exercise described in r 3.16. Having weighed all the r 3.16 factors that are relevant I am satisfied that the application should be granted. Although the record is not yet complete, the defendants have filed a statement of defence in reply to the statement of claim. The pleadings that will be released to Mr Vaughn are therefore complete in as much as they record the plaintiff's allegations, the defendant's response. No unfairness therefore arises. Moreoverthere is considerable public interest in matters concerning taxation and I consider that the principle of open justice favours disclosure. Accordingly, access is granted.1 Yarrow v Finnigan HC New Plymouth CIV-2011-443-330, 15 July 2011 at [22].2 Hotchin v APN New Zealand Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-002464, 3 June 2011.