HEAZLEWOOD v JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTD CA499/2014 [2014] NZCA 587
The Court refused anonymisation and redaction because no statutory or other adequate grounds were shown; s 11B Family Courts Act 1980 permits publication of relationship property proceedings unless specific exceptions apply, and rule 11(5) of the Court of Appeal access rules governs file access without requiring a...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2014] NZCA 587
- Parties
- Appellant: Susan Marie Heazlewood; Respondent: Joie De Vivre Canterbury Ltd
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- New Zealand
- Judgment Date
- 2 December 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment (on the Papers)
- Outcome
- Request for anonymisation and redaction declined; Registrar to release judgment; no order made prohibiting search of the Court of Appeal file
- Legal Topics
- Anonymisation, Redaction, Access to Court Documents, Relationship Property Proceedings, Publication of Judgments
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Susan Marie Heazlewood
Appellant
Joie De Vivre Canterbury Ltd
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment (on the Papers)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Court should anonymise the parties
- 2 Whether parts of the judgment should be redacted (including law firm and caveat number)
- 3 Whether the Court should order that the Court of Appeal file not be searched without leave
Ratio Decidendi
The Court refused anonymisation and redaction because no statutory or other adequate grounds were shown; s 11B Family Courts Act 1980 permits publication of relationship property proceedings unless specific exceptions apply, and rule 11(5) of the Court of Appeal access rules governs file access without requiring a prohibition order here.
Court Disposition
Request for anonymisation and redaction declined; Registrar to release judgment; no order made prohibiting search of the Court of Appeal file
Orders
- Request for anonymisation and redaction declined
- Registrar to release the judgment
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
HEAZLEWOOD v JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTD CA499/2014 [2014] NZCA 587 [2 December 2014]IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALANDCA499/2014[2014] NZCA 587BETWEEN SUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOODAppellantAND JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTDRespondentCourt: Miller, Heath and Dobson JJCounsel: A M Corry for AppellantJ E Bayley for RespondentJudgment:(On the papers)2 December 2014 at 2.00 pmJUDGMENT OF THE COURTRequest to anonymise and redact judgment declined. The Registrar should now release it.____________________________________________________________________REASONS OF THE COURT(Given by Miller J)[1] Counsel for the respondent has sought anonymisation of the judgment, redaction of certain material in it, and orders prohibiting search of the Court of Appeal file. Counsel for Mrs Heazlewood agrees in part.[2] No grounds have been made out for anonymisation. Mr Bayley suggests that it is commonplace to anonymise the parties in proceedings involving maintenance and relationship property. He points out that the High Court has done it in this very case. But s 11B of the Family Courts Act 1980, which applies to relationshipproperty proceedings,1 provides that any person may publish a report of proceedings except in certain circumstances none of which is said to apply in this case.[3] Nor are we prepared to have any details redacted from the judgment. No justification has been advanced for removing the reference to Lane Neave and the caveat number. The judgment should be released accordingly.[4] It is not necessary to direct that the court file not be searched without leave. Rule 11(5) of the Court of Appeal (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009, which corresponds to r 3.12(2) of the High Court Rules, provides that only with the Court'spermission may a person access a document that relates to a proceeding brought under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, as this one was. That extends to the case on appeal, which contains the allegedly sensitive information.Solicitors:Godfreys Law, Christchurch for AppellantRhodes & Co, Christchurch for Respondent1 Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 35A.