ASB BANK LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 2177

ASB BANK LTD v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2015] NZHC 2177 [10 September 2015]IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALANDAUCKLAND REGISTRYCIV-2013-404-004038[2015] NZHC 2177BETWEEN ASB BANK LIMITEDPlaintiffAND COMMISSIONER OF INLANDREVENUEDefendantHearing: On the papersJudgment: 10 September 2015JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY JThis judgment was delivered by Justice Courtneyon 10 September 2015 at 11.30 ampursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court RulesRegistrar / Deputy RegistrarDate...[1] Gareth Vaughn has sought permission to search the Court file of this proceeding. The parties abide the decision of the Court.[2] Mr Vaughn was granted permission to search the Court file (with some limitations) on two previous occasions. His present application (like the previous applications) falls to be determined under r 3.13 of the High Court Rules. Under 3.16 there are a number of factors that need to be taken into account in determining such a request. These were referred to in Winkelmann J's previous decision grantingMr Vaughn permission to search the Court file and it is unnecessary to do so again here.1[3] When Mr Vaughn was last granted access in October 2014 the proceedings were still at an interlocutory stage. They were discontinued before trial. The Court file only contains three further documents filed by the parties, two joint memoranda of counsel and a notice of discontinuance.2[4] Whilst abiding the decision of the Court the ASB has raised for consideration the distinction drawn in past cases between access to pleadings and access to other material, with the principle of open justice having less force at the interlocutory stage than at the substantive hearing stage. In Hawkes Bay Regional Council v Herbert Construction Co Limited Simon France J refused an application where the proceedings had been discontinued at a relatively early stage, emphasising the orderly administration of justice, which is one of the factors for consideration under r 3.16. 3 He considered that early resolution of claims are to be encouraged and when that occurs weight should be given to protecting defendants from harm that could ensue from the disclosure of untested allegations.[5] Simon France J's approach was undoubtedly right. However, that case is distinguishable from the present case in it was "rather a routine commercial dispute"about building construction. I accept that the present case carries a greater level of public interest. I consider that there is sufficient public interest to justify Mr Vaughn1 ASB Bank Ltd v Commissioner of Inland Revenue [2014] NZHC 2391.2 The ASB also filed opening submissions in anticipation of the hearing but these were returned to counsel upon the discontinuance of the proceedings. The Commissioner was not required to respond to the submissions.3 Hawkes Bay Regional Council v Herbert Construction Co Limited [2015] NZHC 1060.being entitled to search the file in relation to the memoranda of counsel and the notice of discontinuance and direct that he be granted access to the file in relation to material filed after 1 October 2014; the existing limitations imposed in previous orders remain in place.____________________P Courtney J