TE POU MATAKANA LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2833

TE POU MATAKANA LIMITED v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2021] NZHC 2833

The Privacy Commissioner was granted leave to intervene because interpretation and application of r 11(2)(d) is central to the judicial review and of wider public importance, and the Commissioner is uniquely qualified to assist the Court; leave was granted subject to conditions limiting scope and timing of submissions to avoid expansion of issues, delay and increased costs.

Citation
[2021] NZHC 2833
Parties
First Applicant: Te Pou Matakana Limited; Second Applicant: Whānau Tahi Limited; Respondent: Attorney-General; Intervener (applicant to Intervene): Privacy Commissioner
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application to Intervene Leave Granted
Outcome
Privacy Commissioner granted leave to intervene with conditions; no order as to costs
Legal Topics
Health Information Privacy Code R 11(2)(d), Privacy Act 2020, Disclosure of Health Information, Intervention, Judicial Review Procedure, COVID 19 Public Health Data
Privacy Law Administrative Law Health Law Public Law Health Information Privacy Code R 11(2)(d) Privacy Act 2020 Disclosure of Health Information Intervention +2 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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Te Pou Matakana Limited

First Applicant

Whānau Tahi Limited

Second Applicant

Attorney-General

Respondent

Privacy Commissioner

Intervener (applicant to Intervene)

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application to Intervene Leave Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Privacy Commissioner should be granted leave to intervene
  2. 2 Construction and application of r 11(2)(d) of the Health Information Privacy Code 2020
  3. 3 Whether statutory privacy exceptions permit disclosure of vaccination and booking status data

Ratio Decidendi

The Privacy Commissioner was granted leave to intervene because interpretation and application of r 11(2)(d) is central to the judicial review and of wider public importance, and the Commissioner is uniquely qualified to assist the Court; leave was granted subject to conditions limiting scope and timing of submissions to avoid expansion of issues, delay and increased costs.

Court Disposition

Privacy Commissioner granted leave to intervene with conditions; no order as to costs

Orders

  • Privacy Commissioner granted leave to intervene
  • Commissioner to file written submissions as soon as possible after receipt of respondent's submissions, either on 22 or 23 October 2021