New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Redaction

Legal area

Court

7 Mar 2023

EEN v BODY CORPORATE 384911 [2023] NZHC 418

Citation

[2023] NZHC 418
Court

High Court

The Court ordered limited particular discovery against the second to sixth defendants because certain categories of documents (A,B, limited C, D, limited E, F, G) were sufficiently relevant to the central issue about use and control of common property to justify discovery subject to e‑Discovery narrowing and redaction for commercially sensitive material; discovery of category H was refused; discovery against the seventh defendant was declined for all categories as duplicative, not in its control or disproportionate; an unredacted HMA must be produced by the second to sixth defendants except f…
23 Jun 2022

RASCAL AND FRIENDS NZ LTD trading as RASCAL + FRIENDS v TAYLOR & ORS [2022] NZHC 1486

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1486
Court

High Court

Access to the requested court documents is denied because the proceeding is at a premature pre-substantive stage with unsettled pleadings and pending strike-out and amendment applications; the protection of privacy and commercially sensitive information and the real risk of unbalanced reporting outweigh open justice at this stage; redaction is unlikely to cure those risks and no adequate disclosure conditions were proposed.
1 Jun 2022

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD [2022] NZHC 1264

Citation

[2022] NZHC 1264
Court

High Court

Applicant was granted access to the register of documents filed in the proceeding and to the interlocutory judgment issued contemporaneously, subject to an embargo until 12 noon on 2 June 2022 to allow parties to raise confidentiality concerns; blanket requests for wholesale access were rejected, interlocutory documents are not accessible as of right, and confidentiality, privilege and commercial sensitivity can justify withholding or redaction of specific materials with parties given the opportunity to propose protections.
27 Apr 2022

THE INK PATCH MONEY TRANSFER LIMITED & ORS v THE RESERVE BANK OF NEW ZEALAND & ANOR [2022] NZHC 840

Citation

[2022] NZHC 840
Court

High Court

The application for access was granted in part because the principle of open justice favours disclosure of pleadings and administrative minutes before the substantive hearing, subject to redaction of material relating to the discontinued third applicant and conditions protecting fair and accurate reporting (specifically a prohibition on publicising written submissions until they have been delivered in open court and publications must reflect any qualifications or amendments).
28 Feb 2022

R v AB, CD and X [2022] NZHC 304

Citation

[2022] NZHC 304
Court

High Court

Access to judgments (other than bail decisions) is granted because they are the primary means of satisfying open justice and provide a self-contained public account, but bail decisions are not released under r 8(4)(a) as they lack ongoing public interest; certain additional suppressions and redactions are necessary to protect privacy, fair trial and an ongoing investigation, including a permanent name suppression and interim withholding or redaction of specific material (including four redacted paragraphs in R v X and recall/amendment and interim withholding of R v AB).
9 Aug 2021

SMART and BROWN v PHOTONIC INNOVATIONS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2021] NZHC 2046 [9 August 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2046
Court

High Court

Given the absence of opposition from served parties and a demonstrated genuine journalistic reason, the Court granted access to the court file under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 but exercised its discretion to exclude the unredacted affidavit of Ms Smart dated 21 December 2020 (Document 5) from inspection.
22 Dec 2020

SCOTT v ANZ BANK NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3497

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3497
Court

High Court

The application for access to pleadings and other non-judgment court documents is declined at this stage because the fair and orderly administration of justice and ANZ's legitimate confidentiality and privacy interests outweigh the open justice interest until the pleadings have closed; judgments and minutes may be released, and the access application may be renewed and will be reviewed at or after the upcoming case management conference with a view to granting access after close of pleadings, subject to redactions and suppression orders.
10 Dec 2020

TE IWI NGARO RAMEKA v R [2020] NZSC 140

Citation

[2020] NZSC 140
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the application to obtain an unredacted search warrant was a routine Access Rules matter that did not raise questions of general or public importance and there was no real risk of miscarriage of justice; the reasons that supported prior redaction under the Criminal Disclosure Act continued to provide a proper basis to decline the request.
9 Sept 2020

ELECTRIX LTD v THE FLETCHER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY LTD NO 3 [2020] NZHC 2348

Citation

(2020) 25 PRNZ 483
Court

High Court

Access was limited to the materials already disclosed during the hearing (pleadings, openings, briefs of evidence subject to redactions, notes of evidence and closings) because the public interest in open justice did not outweigh the significant commercial confidentiality concerns and the disproportionate burden of reviewing and redacting the large volume of underlying documents; that limitation was a justified and proportionate limit under s5 of the Bill of Rights Act.
15 Jul 2020

GRACE v ORION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 1699

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1699
Court

High Court

Access to the specified pleadings was granted to the non‑party because he demonstrated a legitimate and specific purpose (to consider bringing a similar claim), the pleadings were effectively final before trial, and the public interest in orderly administration and open justice outweighed privacy concerns only if those concerns were managed; accordingly access was ordered but subject to redaction of individual claim amounts, insurance particulars and all material relating to the claims against the second defendant to protect plaintiffs' privacy and irrelevant third‑party interests.