New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Non-disclosure orders

Legal area

Court

8 Dec 2020

BIL NZ TREASURY LIMITED v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 3227 [8 December 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3227
Court

High Court

At the early pre-trial stage the judge must balance open justice against the orderly and fair administration of justice and protection of confidentiality; because the proceedings were at an early stage and the pleadings contained commercially sensitive material that could cause irreparable harm if published, access to the statement of claim and statement of defence was declined while access to existing minutes and judgments on the file was granted.
3 Feb 2020

KIM DOTCOM v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY BUREAU [2020] NZSC 1

Citation

[2020] NZSC 1
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because no question of principle arose and no appearance of miscarriage of justice existed on these facts; the Special Advocate process did not miscarry; the Court of Appeal properly balanced the public interest in disclosure against demonstrable harm to national security and international relations under s70, and concluded non-disclosure was warranted.
18 Sept 2019

GREENBAUM v SOUTHERN CROSS HOSPITALS LIMITED [2019] NZCA 438

Citation

[2019] NZCA 438
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court's refusal to order disclosure under s69 Evidence Act 2006: on the evidence the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of private hospital credentialling (necessary to secure candid evaluative material and protect patient safety) outweighed the public interest in disclosure in the proceeding; the applicant's waiver and the Privacy Act considerations supported confidentiality; proposed restricted-access alternatives were insufficient to avoid the chilling harm.
10 Sept 2015

NR v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & ANOR [2015] NZCA 426

Citation

[2015] NZCA 426
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal and cross-appeal were granted because the issues (notably the lawful purpose defence and what constitutes specified acts under the Harassment Act) raised matters of sufficient importance and were intertwined; MR was entitled to non-disclosure of the non-redacted affidavit to protect her safety and that redaction did not invalidate the affidavit; NR's strike-out and cross-examination applications lacked merit; some further evidence consisting of High Court record documents was admissible while other proposed material not before the Court was deferred; the Herald complaint was m…

New Zealand Case Law

BIL NZ TREASURY LIMITED v PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS NEW ZEALAND [2020] NZHC 3227 [8 December 2020]

KIM DOTCOM v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL ON BEHALF OF THE GOVERNMENT COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY BUREAU [2020] NZSC 1

GREENBAUM v SOUTHERN CROSS HOSPITALS LIMITED [2019] NZCA 438

NR v DISTRICT COURT AT AUCKLAND & ANOR [2015] NZCA 426