New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Anonymisation

Legal area

Court

4 Oct 2022

SWIFT v ROGERS [2022] NZHC 2543

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2543
Court

High Court

The handwritten, unsigned and unwitnessed document reflected the deceased's testamentary intentions when created and at death; the passage of time did not rebut that intention because the evidence supported that the deceased believed no further formalities were required; accordingly the Court declared the document a valid will under s14 Wills Act 2007, declined to exercise its discretion to refuse validation, but declined to grant probate because no proper application/affidavit for probate was before the Court.
21 Dec 2021

BLAKE v BLAKE [2021] NZHC 3575

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3575
Court

High Court

The High Court applied the principle that income and value accretion of relationship property entities (HML and its subsidiaries) are neutral for s15 purposes and therefore assessed economic disparity by reference to Mr Blake's personal earning capacity excluding income attributable to relationship property, using a key person discount; it quantified the s15 award on an adjusted post-tax annual income of $400,000 and set interest regimes accordingly, while granting leave on specific appeal questions.
12 Nov 2021

FOUR MIDWIVES, NZDSOS and NZTSOS v MINISTER FOR COVID-19 RESPONSE [2021] NZHC 3064

Citation

[2021] NZHC 3064
Court

High Court

Section 11(1)(a) of the COVID-19 Public Health Response Act 2020, read by its text and in light of purpose and context, encompasses orders requiring persons to refrain from association unless vaccinated and to undergo vaccination; the s 11 NZBORA right to refuse medical treatment is engaged but the Act contemplates limits on NZBORA rights where justified under s 5 and subject to s 9 safeguards; neither s 6 nor the common law principle of legality requires reading down the empowering provision where limits are reasonable and demonstrably justified under s 5; accordingly the Vaccinations Order…
22 Sept 2021

B v DISTRICT COURT AT PALMERSTON NORTH [2021] NZHC 2484

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2484
Court

High Court

Balancing open justice against privacy and confidentiality, the Court found little public interest in identifying the parties for a technical ruling on the Rules, the applicant demonstrated sufficient specific prejudice from publication to justify an interim suppression order, and accordingly granted interim name suppression for B and anonymised the other party with continuation to be determined by the District Court on reconsideration.
27 Aug 2021

B (SC 74/2021) v ALA [2021] NZSC 105

Citation

[2021] NZSC 105
Court

Supreme Court

The application for leave was dismissed because the Court of Appeal had applied settled principles to refuse an extension of time and concluded the proposed appeal lacked merit; the limited significance of the prior publication and the absence of any appearance of miscarriage of justice meant there was no question of general or public importance to justify leave.
12 Aug 2021

G v COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [2021] NZHC 2103

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2103
Court

High Court

Interim suppression of name and identifying particulars is justified because, on balance and pending the first call, the applicant's privacy and rehabilitation interests outweigh open justice concerns; the Court therefore exercises its inherent jurisdiction and grants anonymisation pending further order.
11 Mar 2021

NGUY v LAWYERS AND CONVEYANCERS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL [2021] NZHC 478 [11 March 2021]

Citation

[2021] NZHC 478
Court

High Court

Section 245(3) must be read to require that any direction for publication of a notice stating the date and effect of an interim suspension cannot take effect until after the 14‑day period from the making of the suspension order has expired; the Court declined to grant interim injunctive relief because the Tribunal and Law Society gave a clear undertaking not to publish before that date and the Court will enforce that undertaking and manage the matter by a short return date.
9 Feb 2021

D (SC 31/2019) v NEW ZEALAND POLICE [2021] NZSC 2

Citation

[2021] 1 NZLR 213
Court

Supreme Court

By majority the Supreme Court held s 9(1) of the Registration Act did not lawfully apply to offenders who committed qualifying offences before the Act came into force but were convicted and sentenced after that date because the statute was not sufficiently clear to displace the presumption against retrospective penalties under s 6 of the Sentencing Act and s 25(g) of the Bill of Rights; applying that conclusion the registration order was quashed (the Court also set out the proper two‑stage approach to s 9 assessments).
1 Feb 2018

AL (NIGERIA) v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 42

Citation

[2018] NZHC 42
Court

High Court

Where there was no dispute both leave applications were filed on 14 November 2017 and no prejudice to respondents, the Court granted leave to file the originating application, dispensed with service, directed allocation of a separate CIV number, and ordered anonymisation; formal orders were appropriate to regularise the registry defect and provide certainty given strict statutory timeframes.
12 May 2017

A v MINISTER OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS [2017] NZHC 965

Citation

[2017] NZHC 965
Court

High Court

Total prohibition on publication was refused; anonymisation previously ordered is an appropriate and proportionate protection of the applicant's privacy and reputation, limited suppression of details of the respondent's originating application is warranted, and the judgment's incorrect dates are corrected under the slip rule.