KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2016] NZHC 307

KIDD v VAN HEEREN [2016] NZHC 307

Although the judge indicated a preference for the plaintiff's construction that the fourth affidavit could be read by Mr Cooper under the existing interim orders, the Court nonetheless made an interim order requiring Mr Cooper to provide an undertaking that he will not further use or disseminate any of the contents of the defendant’s fourth affidavit pending the full hearing on 11 March 2016 to resolve the interplay between the prior undertaking and the interim confidentiality orders.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 307
Parties
Plaintiff (respondent): Michael David Kidd; Defendant (applicant): Alexander Pieter van Heeren
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil High Court Proceeding (interlocutory Applications) / Interlocutory Stage — Urgent Telephone Conference Regarding Confidentiality and Stay on Costs; Hearing Set for 11 March 2016
Outcome
Interim orders made requiring a third‑party undertaking and scheduling of full hearing to determine confidentiality and related stay application on costs.
Legal Topics
Restricting Access to Court File, Confidential Affidavits, Undertakings to the Court, Interim Orders, Publication and Dissemination, Stay of Costs
Civil Procedure Confidentiality Access to Court Files Costs Restricting Access to Court File Confidential Affidavits Undertakings to the Court Interim Orders +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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael David Kidd

Plaintiff (respondent)

Alexander Pieter van Heeren

Defendant (applicant)

Procedural Posture

Civil High Court Proceeding (interlocutory Applications) / Interlocutory Stage — Urgent Telephone Conference Regarding Confidentiality and Stay on Costs; Hearing Set for 11 March 2016

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's fourth affidavit could be provided to a third party (Mr Bryan Cooper) given an earlier undertaking by the plaintiff's solicitor and interim court orders
  2. 2 Whether the earlier undertaking remains operative pending determination of a pending application for confidentiality and how it interacts with prior interim orders
  3. 3 Whether the Court should require a third party to give an undertaking not to further use or disseminate confidential affidavit material pending a full hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Although the judge indicated a preference for the plaintiff's construction that the fourth affidavit could be read by Mr Cooper under the existing interim orders, the Court nonetheless made an interim order requiring Mr Cooper to provide an undertaking that he will not further use or disseminate any of the contents of the defendant’s fourth affidavit pending the full hearing on 11 March 2016 to resolve the interplay between the prior undertaking and the interim confidentiality orders.

Court Disposition

Interim orders made requiring a third‑party undertaking and scheduling of full hearing to determine confidentiality and related stay application on costs.

Orders

  • Mr Bryan Cooper ordered to provide an undertaking to the Court that he will not further use or disseminate any of the contents of the defendant's fourth affidavit pending the hearing on 11 March 2016 and any order arising therefrom.
  • Confidentiality application and the stay application relating to costs scheduled to be heard on 11 March 2016, to be heard together if possible.