New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Invasion of privacy

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2022

BUXTON v XERO LTD [2022] NZCA 100

Citation

[2022] NZCA 100
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held the High Court erred in striking out the proceedings as an abuse of process because the appellants' present claim raised distinct issues (whether Xero's responses unlawfully disclosed third-party private information) and the appellants were not in privity with the bankrupt for the earlier ruling; however Xero was entitled to summary judgment because it was required by law to provide the records to the Official Assignee under s 171 and compelled statutory disclosure is a complete defence to a tort claim for invasion of privacy, so the appellants' claims could not succeed.
20 Apr 2020

PETERS v BENNETT & ORS [2020] NZHC 761

Citation

[2020] NZHC 761
Court

High Court

Court found plaintiff had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the MSD investigation into his NZS overpayment and that public disclosure to media would be highly offensive, but plaintiff failed to prove that any defendant (Ministers, MSD, SSC or officials) was responsible for leaking the information to the media. Disclosures to MSD management, to the State Services Commission and to Ministers were made in good faith and were justified under the 'no surprises' convention in the particular factual context (sensitivity following unrelated disclosures and public interest in assurance of system…
20 Nov 2019

HENDERSON v WALKER [2019] NZHC 3020

Citation

[2019] NZHC 3020
Court

High Court

The court held the defendant's Calderbank offers did not make the plaintiff's rejection unreasonable given the centrality of an adequate public acknowledgement as vindication in a privacy claim; accordingly no adverse costs were awarded against the plaintiff under r 14.11. The plaintiff was not entitled to increased costs from his own offers under r 14.6(3)(b)(v). The court disallowed costs for steps taken while the plaintiff was self-represented, applied a modest reduction for the plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with particularisation and timetabling directions and a small reduction f…
3 Sept 2019

HENDERSON v WALKER [2019] NZHC 2184

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2184
Court

High Court

The defendant (Walker) was liable for breach of confidence and invasion of privacy for specific distributions of the plaintiff's private electronic material after he was on notice of its confidential character (knowledge established by May–June 2011); the Tape Drive given to IRD on 12 April 2011 did not give rise to breach because defendant lacked knowledge the backup contained private material then; public interest and statutory powers justified some limited disclosures to authorities but did not justify disclosures to private third parties or certain transfers to the Official Assignee befor…
3 Sept 2019

HYNDMAN v WALKER [2019] NZHC 2188

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2188
Court

High Court

All causes of action dismissed: defendant did not owe an enforceable duty of confidence to plaintiff in respect of documents belonging to a third party; disclosed material was not shown to be of the necessary quantity or character to establish invasion of privacy or to be highly offensive; liquidator is not a public officer for misfeasance in public office; no actionable breach of statutory duty shown; contempt claim failed on pleaded basis and remedy not made.
14 Jul 2017

DOTCOM & ORS v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1621

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1621
Court

High Court

The Court held the Court of Appeal's earlier decision conclusively determined that the raw communications were not relevant or discoverable for the damages inquiry and issue estoppel bars relitigation by Mr Dotcom; moreover, on the merits and after the mandatory s70 balancing exercise the public interest in withholding the raw communications and redactions outweighed the public interest in disclosure because disclosure would likely prejudice national security and related interests; accordingly an order under s70 was made limiting disclosure to the special advocate, his expert adviser and the…
11 Jul 2014

FAESENKLOET v JENKIN [2014] NZHC 1637

Citation

[2014] NZHC 1637
Court

High Court

The filmed area was public road reserve and a relatively public part of a driveway with no high expectation of privacy; the surveillance did not amount to a highly offensive intrusion on an objective standard; accordingly there is no serious question to be tried on the tort of invasion of privacy and the balance of convenience and overall justice do not justify continuation of an interim injunction.
17 Jan 2014

CHATWIN v APN NEWS AND MEDIA LTD [2014] NZHC 11

Citation

[2014] NZHC 11
Court

High Court

The injunction was refused because, on the material available at the urgent hearing, the plaintiff had not demonstrated a serious question to be tried in respect of an invasion of privacy; the claim was weak absent specific private facts and publication would likely not meet the threshold of being highly offensive, and the balance of convenience favoured the defendant given the significant weight of freedom of expression under s14 BORA.
28 Mar 2007

ANDREWS V TVNZ HC AK CIV 2004-404-3536

Citation

openlaw-5eedb0f6_0ffd_4c85_8d3b_1f91715f2a44.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court awarded the defendant category 2B scale costs increased by $1,922.50 (a 50% uplift on specified interlocutory items) because the plaintiffs' procedural defaults caused unnecessary steps and expense; indemnity costs were denied because circumstances were not exceptional; the late without-prejudice offer made three working days before trial was reasonably declined and did not justify further uplift.
15 Dec 2006

ANDREWS V TVNZ HC AK CIV 2004-404-3536

Citation

openlaw-a2e96977_e49c_43cb_81d4_1005e6c22710.pdf
Court

High Court

Court held plaintiffs had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the intimate communications filmed at the accident scene but failed the second limb because the broadcast would not be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person in their position; therefore no actionable invasion of privacy and claim dismissed.