FINN HABIB BATATO v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2019] NZSC 50
Leave to intervene was declined because the issues about the meaning of 'object' in s 131 arise in a particular extradition context and have been canvassed in detail by the parties, intervention was unnecessary to ensure appropriate submissions, and the intervener did not demonstrate representative status such that...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] NZSC 50
- Parties
- Appellant: Finn Habib Batato; First Appellant: Mathias Ortmann; Second Appellant: Bram van der Kolk; Appellant: Kim Dotcom; Respondent: United States of America; Applicant to Intervene: James Piper trading as Pipers Intellectual Property
- Court
- Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 20 May 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Extradition Appeal With Question of Statutory Interpretation / Application for Leave to Intervene; Appeal Scheduled for Hearing (week Beginning 10 June 2019)
- Outcome
- Application for leave to intervene declined; no order as to costs.
- Legal Topics
- Section 131 Copyright Act 1994, Meaning of 'object', Leave to Intervene, Representation and Standing to Intervene
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Finn Habib Batato
Appellant
Mathias Ortmann
First Appellant
Bram van der Kolk
Second Appellant
Kim Dotcom
Appellant
United States of America
Respondent
James Piper trading as Pipers Intellectual Property
Applicant to Intervene
Procedural Posture
Extradition Appeal With Question of Statutory Interpretation / Application for Leave to Intervene; Appeal Scheduled for Hearing (week Beginning 10 June 2019)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to intervene should be granted
- 2 Whether interpretation of 'object' in s 131 Copyright Act 1994 requires intervention
- 3 Whether the intervener represents interests not already represented by the parties
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to intervene was declined because the issues about the meaning of 'object' in s 131 arise in a particular extradition context and have been canvassed in detail by the parties, intervention was unnecessary to ensure appropriate submissions, and the intervener did not demonstrate representative status such that intervention was required; broader implications alone do not justify intervention.
Court Disposition
Application for leave to intervene declined; no order as to costs.
Orders
- Leave to intervene declined.
- No order as to costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
FINN HABIB BATATO v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2019] NZSC 50 [20 May 2019]IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALANDI TE KŌTI MANA NUISC 55/2018[2019] NZSC 50BETWEEN FINN HABIB BATATOAppellantAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICARespondentSC 56/2018BETWEEN MATHIAS ORTMANNFirst AppellantBRAM VAN DER KOLKSecond AppellantAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICARespondentSC 57/2018BETWEEN KIM DOTCOMAppellantAND UNITED STATES OF AMERICARespondentCourt: Winkelmann CJ, Glazebrook, O'Regan, Ellen France andWilliams JJCounsel: G M Illingworth QC, P J K Spring and A K Hyde forMessrs Ortmann and van der KolkA G V Rogers for Mr BatatoR M Mansfield and S L Cogan for Mr DotcomK Raftery QC for United States of AmericaC J Woodroffe for applicant to interveneJudgment: 20 May 2019JUDGMENT OF THE COURTA The application for leave to intervene is declined.B No order as to costs.____________________________________________________________________REASONS[1] The appeal in this matter is scheduled for hearing in the week beginning10 June 2019. James Piper trading as Pipers Intellectual Property has applied for leaveto intervene in the hearing.1[2] Mr Piper seeks to be heard in relation to the definition of the word "object" ins 131 of the Copyright Act 1994. Mr Piper says the Court's approach to this aspect ofs 131 will have implications for New Zealanders providing such internet providerservices.[3] The application for intervention is opposed by Messrs Ortmann, Van der Kolkand Batato and by the respondent, the United States. Mr Dotcom abides the decisionof the Court on the application.[4] We are not persuaded leave to intervene should be granted. While the appealraises questions about the meaning of s 131 of the Copyright Act, those questions arisein a particular context, namely, whether the Court of Appeal was correct to find thatthe appellants' conduct constitutes an extradition offence. The Court's determinationmay have broader implications beyond the present case but that, in itself, is notnecessarily a basis for granting leave to intervene. That is particularly so whereinterpretation of s 131 is a matter canvassed in some detail by the submissions of theparties all of whom are familiar with the issues as they arise in the present context.This is not therefore a case where there is a gap in the cases to be presented whichsubmissions from the intervener will assist to fill.1 An earlier application for intervention by Mr Piper was declined on the basis it was premature butcould be renewed if leave to appeal was granted.[5] It follows also that intervention is not necessary to ensure that the Court hasappropriate submissions on matters of law and policy. In any event, while counselexplains that Mr Piper is a patent attorney advising those conducting Internet ServiceProvider services in New Zealand, there is no suggestion the submissions will berepresentative of, for example, any relevant professional bodies.[6] The application for leave to intervene is accordingly declined. We make noorder as to costs.Solicitors:Keegan Alexander, Auckland for Messrs Ortmann and van der KolkAnderson Creagh Lai Limited, Auckland for Mr DotcomCrown Law Office, Wellington for United States of AmericaCopy to:Woodroffe Lawyers, Auckland