J A WALLER AND R D AGNEW V R ABBOTT AND ANOR HC NWP CIV2005-443-315

J A WALLER AND R D AGNEW V R ABBOTT AND ANOR HC NWP CIV2005-443-315

Permission to film, record or photograph was declined because the interlocutory application must be heard in chambers and be private, parties are not authorised media surrogates and their recording poses real risks of abuse of process, disruption, privacy violation and unbalanced public dissemination; although summary judgment is heard in open court, allowing parties (as opposed to media) to record is an inappropriate exercise of the Court's discretion.

Citation
openlaw-33ace79a_ce6f_4563_885d_a1477e150ee0.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: John Anthony Waller; Plaintiff: Richard Dale Agnew; Defendant: Roy Abbott; Defendant: Adrienne Abbott
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
5 September 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications / Pre Hearing: Interlocutory (challenge to Jurisdiction) and Summary Judgment Scheduling
Outcome
Application to film, record or photograph declined
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Constructive Trust, Statutory Management, Court Filming and Recording, Open Justice, Chambers Hearings, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Equity Trusts Media Coverage of Courts Summary Judgment Constructive Trust Statutory Management Court Filming and Recording +3 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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Anthony Waller

Plaintiff

Richard Dale Agnew

Plaintiff

Roy Abbott

Defendant

Adrienne Abbott

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment and Interlocutory Applications / Pre Hearing: Interlocutory (challenge to Jurisdiction) and Summary Judgment Scheduling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parties to litigation may film, record or photograph court proceedings
  2. 2 Whether an interlocutory application that must be heard in chambers may be filmed or recorded
  3. 3 Whether parties can act as surrogates of the public/media for court coverage

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to film, record or photograph was declined because the interlocutory application must be heard in chambers and be private, parties are not authorised media surrogates and their recording poses real risks of abuse of process, disruption, privacy violation and unbalanced public dissemination; although summary judgment is heard in open court, allowing parties (as opposed to media) to record is an inappropriate exercise of the Court's discretion.

Court Disposition

Application to film, record or photograph declined

Orders

  • Permission to film, record or photograph declined
  • Hearing of the interlocutory application to set aside the appearance under protest will be held in chambers and remain private