New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Breach of privacy

Legal area

Court

27 Jan 2021

DELIU v JOHNSTONE [2021] NZHC 25

Citation

[2021] NZHC 25
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused for both applicants: the application by Mr Deliu regarding the requirement to provide $5,000 security for costs against claims versus members of Meredith Connell was dismissed because those claims were insufficiently pleaded, lacked evidential foundation of unlawfulness or malice and were not sufficiently meritorious to justify leave; the Police's application was dismissed because the proceedings against them were reasonably arguable and the proposed appeal lacked sufficient merit and importance to outweigh cost and delay.
14 Dec 2020

WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZCA 649

Citation

[2020] NZCA 649
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court granted leave to adduce the proposed fresh evidence provisionally because the material is fresh, credible and cogent, constitutes relevant admissions that bear directly on the appellant's grounds of appeal, and accordingly should be admitted de bene esse for determination at the full appeal hearing.
28 Mar 2019

NUKU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 618

Citation

[2019] NZHC 618
Court

High Court

No new parties order or leave to file a second amended statement of claim was granted because there was no qualifying event under HCR r4.52 making such an order necessary or desirable, and because permitting late amendment and joinder at this stage would be inappropriate given the close of pleadings, completed evidence and discovery, and the imminent hearing; disclosure issues can be addressed by inclusion of documents in the agreed bundle rather than adding a party.
9 May 2013

WHITE V FREEMAN HC AK CIV-2013-404-2298

Citation

openlaw-858ff0d2_603d_400e_91a9_9a20e80bd16e.pdf
Court

High Court

Plaintiffs failed to establish a strong or tenable case for an interlocutory injunction: the alleged causes of action were weak or unclear, the estoppel claim was unsupported by contemporaneous evidence, plaintiffs were impecunious so undertakings as to damages lacked value, and the balance of convenience favoured the Bank which would suffer increasing loss if prevented from realising its security; accordingly the injunction was refused.
28 Mar 2011

"A" v FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC WN CIV-2011-485-569

Citation

openlaw-17bf3806_c00e_4190_a77e_a75041d7a1c2.pdf
Court

High Court

On the facts the plaintiff established a prima facie case that his complaint and identity were private with a reasonable expectation of privacy, there was urgency and real risk that publication would defeat statutory protections and cause irreversible harm, and the public interest lay in the fact of the complaint rather than the complainant's identity; accordingly a holding injunction and ancillary orders prohibiting publication of the plaintiff's name and identifying particulars were justified pending further order.

New Zealand Case Law

DELIU v JOHNSTONE [2021] NZHC 25

WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT [2020] NZCA 649

NUKU v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2019] NZHC 618

WHITE V FREEMAN HC AK CIV-2013-404-2298

"A" v FAIRFAX NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC WN CIV-2011-485-569