HARRISON V AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD HC AK CIV-2011-404-6634

HARRISON V AUCKLAND DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD HC AK CIV-2011-404-6634

The application for suppression was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Judge Abbott's direction and High Court Rules, and there were no circumstances justifying an exception to the principle of open justice; the judgment should be released in the usual way.

Citation
openlaw-8c2e06e5_cc5a_4544_a7cb_dd51667a0d45.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: PJ Harrison; Second Plaintiff: AJ Harrison; First Defendant: Auckland District Health Board; Second Defendant: F; Third Defendant: G; Fourth Defendant: H; Fifth Defendant: Health and Disability Commissioner; Sixth Defendant: Coronial Services Unit
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
23 November 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Suppression of Publication (on Papers) Following Strike Out Judgment
Outcome
Application for suppression dismissed; order for release of judgment
Legal Topics
Suppression of Judgments, Open Justice, Inherent Jurisdiction, Strike Out, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Privacy and Publication Administrative Law Coronial Law Medical Negligence Suppression of Judgments Open Justice Inherent Jurisdiction +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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

PJ Harrison

First Plaintiff

AJ Harrison

Second Plaintiff

Auckland District Health Board

First Defendant

F

Second Defendant

G

Third Defendant

H

Fourth Defendant

Health and Disability Commissioner

Fifth Defendant

Coronial Services Unit

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Suppression of Publication (on Papers) Following Strike Out Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to suppress publication of a civil judgment
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs complied with the Court's procedural directions and High Court Rules
  3. 3 Whether the circumstances amount to an exception to the principle of open justice

Ratio Decidendi

The application for suppression was dismissed because the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Judge Abbott's direction and High Court Rules, and there were no circumstances justifying an exception to the principle of open justice; the judgment should be released in the usual way.

Court Disposition

Application for suppression dismissed; order for release of judgment

Orders

  • The judgment of Abbott AJ is to be released by the registry in the usual way
  • Registry correctly refused to accept the plaintiffs' non-compliant 'Notice of Opposition to Internet Publication' and plaintiffs failed to file the required application by the directed date