New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Confidentiality of settlement

Legal area

Court

14 Nov 2019

RANI v BHATTI [2019] NZHC 2975

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2975
Court

High Court

The court held that the applicant may access the formal court record of the bankruptcy file (CIV-2014-404-2318) under r 8 but is denied access to any other documents on that file under r 11 after balancing r 12 factors, and access to any documents on the relationship property file (CIV-2014-404-1769) is refused because r 7 bars access absent good reason and the privacy, settlement and lapse of time factors outweigh the applicant's interest.
22 Nov 2018

SAJO OYANG CORPORATION AND RUDI HARTONO AND 29 OTHERS v THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZHC 3041

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3041
Court

High Court

Relief from forfeiture was granted because, on balance of statutory s256(7) factors, the environmental and fishery management effects were limited (TACC under‑caught and increased next year), economic benefit to owner was quantified and addressed in settlement, no corporate prosecution or prior offending by officers was established, and the negotiated settlement provided payments to crew and the Ministry thereby avoiding manifest injustice and meeting statutory objectives.
25 Jun 2018

WENTWORTH RETREAT (2009) LIMITED and MARES PROPERTIES (NZ) LIMITED v LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE (NZ) LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1519

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1519
Court

High Court

Application refused because the documents sought substantially overlapped with matters previously rejected on interlocutory applications, disclosure would undermine orderly and fair administration of justice and procedural rules, confidentiality of a settled proceeding outweighed the applicant's need given the irrelevance of insurance pleadings to the tort/subrogation claim, and open justice did not require disclosure.
14 Jul 2014

CAMPBELL v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1650

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1650
Court

High Court

The court ordered particular discovery under r 8.19 because the settlement documents were sufficiently relevant to a live issue (possible double recovery and inconsistency with earlier pleadings affecting the policy exclusion defence) and there was no practical alternative means for the applicant to obtain the information; confidentiality concerns and the late filing did not outweigh the need for disclosure, subject to strict confidentiality safeguards.
29 May 2013

EATON AND MARSHALL v LDC FINANCE LIMITED & Ors [2013] NZHC 1242

Citation

[2013] NZHC 1242
Court

High Court

The Court held that Eaton and Marshall were de facto trustees with fiduciary duties and, to remove doubt about the extent of their authority, formally appointed them under s51 of the Trustee Act; the Court further authorised them under s64 to enter into the conditional settlement negotiated on 6 March 2013 and to receive and dispose of the funds paid into Court, directing pro rata distribution to depositors and granting customary ancillary directions including confidentiality; the settlement was found to be a prudent exercise of trustee power given the real appellate risk to the fund.

New Zealand Case Law

RANI v BHATTI [2019] NZHC 2975

SAJO OYANG CORPORATION AND RUDI HARTONO AND 29 OTHERS v THE MINISTRY FOR PRIMARY INDUSTRIES [2018] NZHC 3041

WENTWORTH RETREAT (2009) LIMITED and MARES PROPERTIES (NZ) LIMITED v LUMLEY GENERAL INSURANCE (NZ) LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1519

CAMPBELL v SOUTHERN RESPONSE EARTHQUAKE SERVICES LIMITED [2014] NZHC 1650

EATON AND MARSHALL v LDC FINANCE LIMITED & Ors [2013] NZHC 1242