New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Official information act

Legal area

Court

14 Jul 2020

PETER BRENT HOME HUBBARD AND HARLEY HAYNES v KIWIRAIL LIMITED [2020] NZSC 65 [14 July 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZSC 65
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the proposed appeal lacked merit: the issues the applicants sought to re-litigate had been conclusively determined in prior proceedings, the applicants' arguments were implausible, the liquidation was effectively complete making the appeal likely moot, and there was no appearance of miscarriage of justice warranting leave.
5 Aug 2019

R v BRENTON HARRISON TARRANT [2019] NZHC 1886

Citation

[2019] NZHC 1886
Court

High Court

Court is satisfied ACC holds the requested material and that it appears relevant to the defendant's change of venue application; accordingly the Court made mandatory directions under s26 requiring ACC to provide the material to the Court for a s24 hearing.
3 Oct 2017

COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE v ELEMENTARY SOLUTIONS LIMITED [2017] NZHC 2411

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2411
Court

High Court

Discovery was refused because Elementary's indebtedness was not genuinely in dispute (conceded and supported by tax assessments), the asserted counterclaim and unfairness grounds are barred by the prior judgment (res judicata), the 26 categories sought were overbroad, irrelevant to the liquidation threshold, disproportionate, and in many respects sought for collateral purposes contrary to the rules limiting use of discovered documents; accordingly no discovery order was warranted and the application was dismissed.
1 Apr 2016

N v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2016] NZHC 547

Citation

[2016] NZHC 547
Court

High Court

Standard discovery orders were unnecessary and disproportionate; the just, expeditious and inexpensive solution is that the Ministry supply both the redacted and unredacted (clean) copies of disputed documents on a strictly counsel-to-counsel basis, with plaintiffs to seek Crown consent before showing clean copies to claimants or using redacted content in litigation and leave to apply to the Court if consent is withheld; the Court will only further intervene where redactions have real and potentially adverse consequences in the litigation.
16 Apr 2015

WATSON v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS [2015] NZHC 718 [16 April 2015]

Citation

[2015] NZHC 718
Court

High Court

Where personal information is directly relevant to proceedings the s69 Evidence Act balancing test governs disclosure; the two paragraphs summarising the Department's explanation and the victims' opposition were not of such confidential character as to outweigh the applicant's right to see evidence relevant to the impugned decision; accordingly the unredacted affidavit must be made available to counsel under strict court-ordered custody and undertakings and continued restriction on wider access, with leave reserved for further suppression if necessary.
17 Dec 2014

HAGER v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2014] NZHC 3293

Citation

[2014] NZHC 3293
Court

High Court

Court ordered limited discovery of contemporaneous Police documents relevant to (a) the decision whether to apply for a warrant and (b) the execution of the warrant, subject to strict confidentiality safeguards (access limited to named counsel, limited redactions only where necessary to protect ongoing investigation or techniques), directed Police to re-review redactions and provide a list of withheld/partially redacted documents with grounds, held that no District Court reasons document exists, reserved leave on cloning arrangements but proposed Court-appointed ECL expert to perform cloning…
17 Oct 2014

DOTCOM v THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA [2014] NZHC 2550

Citation

[2014] NZHC 2550
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the judicial review. It held the District Court did not err in declining the discovery applications as framed because pre-trial non-party discovery of domestic agencies should proceed through the statutory access regimes (Privacy Act/OIA) and the extradition court need not assume s11 enforcement within the extradition process; where s11 enforcement is sought the court may exercise discretion and decline based on factors including relevance, breadth, timing, prior Privacy Commissioner review, and resource burden. There is no general power to order pre-trial non-party d…
21 May 2009

COLIN TONY VEITCH V NEW ZEALAND POLICE AND ORS HC WN CIV-2009-485-960

Citation

openlaw-d2593cb5_8896_41da_b729_e7a81e447df2.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court granted short-term interim orders restraining the police from further disclosure and restraining the media defendants from publishing material obtained from the police file that was not already in the public domain because on the limited material before the Court there were arguable causes of action and the balance of convenience favored temporary restraint to prevent potential irreparable harm, while material already published on websites was not restrained.