New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confidentiality and privacy

Legal area

Court

17 Mar 2023

R v D CRI-2019-042-450 [2023] NZHC 438

Citation

[2023] NZHC 438
Court

High Court

The Court granted access to the entire High Court file because the applicant demonstrated a legitimate and valuable research purpose with robust safeguards (ethics approval, de‑identification, controlled access), the statutory scheme permits judge‑approved access to r 8(4) documents, and the balance of open justice against privacy favored allowing access subject to conditions; notice to parties was dispensed with as impractical in the circumstances.
6 Sept 2022

ROSEBUD CORPORATE TRUSTEE LIMITED v BUBLITZ [2022] NZHC 2262

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2262
Court

High Court

The application was granted for specified documents because the request was for a legitimate criminal investigation, complied with the Mutual Assistance Act requirements, the materials sought were produced in open public proceedings and not subject to suppression, and appropriate conditions restricting use to the stated investigation were imposed including Crown Law obtaining written agreement from the Hong Kong Department of Justice.
8 Aug 2022

DIRECTOR-GENERAL OF HEALTH v PETER HUMPHREYS [2022] NZCA 359

Citation

[2022] NZCA 359
Court

Court of Appeal

Access to the Court of Appeal file was granted only for minutes, orders, judgments, pleadings and submissions; access to notes of evidence, affidavits and briefs was declined to protect confidentiality and privacy; counsel for the applicant must give an undertaking that confidential material in pleadings and submissions will be held only by counsel and not disclosed to Taikura Trust; no order as to costs.
26 Feb 2020

WALKER (ACCESS TO FILES) [2020] NZHC 280,

Citation

[2020] NZHC 280
Court

High Court

Access was granted because the applicant demonstrated good reasons under the Rules: the events were already publicly reported, the material is central to her family history and there are no surviving witnesses or family members to consult, and there was minimal risk of prejudice to living or vulnerable persons, satisfying the higher threshold for access to divorce files.
6 Mar 2019

POROS v BURNEY [2019] NZHC 361

Citation

[2019] NZHC 361
Court

High Court

The application was declined because the proceeding was interlocutory with much material still disputed and containing sensitive private information, there was no demonstrated public interest in disclosure, and related Family Court proceedings were pending; accordingly access should await final determination, consistent with Rule 12(c) and Rice v Heaney.
2 Aug 2018

MOSS v LOVE [2018] NZHC 1968

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1968
Court

High Court

The application for access was declined at this stage because pre-trial confidentiality and privacy interests, together with the court's interest in promoting settlement and the parties' ongoing settlement negotiations (and potential prejudice to the debtor's financing efforts), outweighed the applicant's open justice interests; the applicant may reapply after the first call on 28 August 2018.
1 Oct 2015

KAWARAU VILLAGE HOLDINGS LTD v CHI [2015] NZHC 2387

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2387
Court

High Court

Under r 3.16 the court balanced the relevance of the pleadings to the applicants' appeal and the orderly and fair administration of justice against confidentiality and privacy interests and held that access to the pleadings should be granted because relevance and fairness weighed in favour, subject to protective conditions to address privacy and confidentiality concerns.
6 Nov 2012

THE NATIONAL STANDARDS COMMITTEE (NO 1) V ORLOV HC AK CIV-2012-404-3787

Citation

openlaw-232948b4_81dd_415e_82d0_dca7a77e68b1.pdf
Court

High Court

The application by the Law Society to inspect and copy the listed Court files is granted because the request serves the Law Society's legitimate statutory regulatory functions and the r 3.16 balancing favoured inspection subject to strict confidentiality conditions; only the respondent (Orlov) was found to be 'adversely affected' for service purposes and any use of copied documents as evidence requires further directions to protect privacy, confidentiality and privilege.