New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Privacy

Legal area

Court

18 Dec 2020

MAU WHENUA INCORPORATED v WAYNE THOMAS MULLIGAN, JOHN FREDERICK COFFEY, HOLDEN HOHAIA, TOA WOODBINE POMARE, MAHINA HABER-PUKETAPU, KIM SKELTON, PAORA JENKINS-MEPHAM and HUIA PUKETAPU [2020] NZHC 3411

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3411
Court

High Court

The application was declined because it failed to comply with r 11(2) by not stating the purpose and reasons for access and provided insufficient information for the court to undertake the mandatory r 12 balancing exercise; the court therefore exercised its discretion to refuse the request.
4 May 2020

Stirrup [2020] NZHC 895

Citation

[2020] NZHC 895
Court

High Court

The applicant, as the daughter of the parties to the 1962-63 divorce, has a legitimate and weighty personal interest; after almost 60 years privacy interests have diminished, one parent is deceased and the other cannot be contacted, and balancing the r12 and r13 factors with the statutory restriction in r7, there is good reason to permit access subject to a non-publication condition.
6 Apr 2020

GRACE v ORION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 701

Citation

[2020] NZHC 701
Court

High Court

The telephone records sought are relevant to the pleaded issues because timing of a call may materially affect the timeline and therefore the cause of the fire; there is credible basis to believe the records exist with providers; disclosure of a small number of call records is proportionate and not oppressive; accordingly discovery must be ordered under rr 8.18–8.19 of the High Court Rules.
5 Feb 2015

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 75

Citation

[2015] NZHC 75
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed. Privacy Act victimisation is not actionable per se under s 66 HRA; unlawful discrimination under s 42 and indirect discrimination under s 65 do not require proof of specific subjective intent to discriminate but do require some material or evidential link between the prohibited ground and the impugned conduct; the Tribunal did not err in its approach or conclusions on the facts and its credibility-based findings were reasonable.
8 Aug 2012

DOTCOM V ATTORNEY-GENERAL MEDIA HC AK CIV 2012-404-001928

Citation

openlaw-ac494986_bf1b_4261_a191_52119f1d79b4.pdf
Court

High Court

Suppression orders are justified only where publication would materially imperil safety or operational effectiveness; applying that test the Court granted non-publication of identifying particulars of AOS/STG members and suppression of STG call signs (except Zero Alpha) and a minute-by-minute operational plan portion of the Request for Assistance (page 108 up to 'Legal Authority'), but refused broader suppression of the remaining document material as not operationally sensitive; interim continuation of non-publication for the two documents was ordered to permit consideration of appeal.
4 Aug 2005

MAFART AND PRIEUR V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA CA92/05

Citation

openlaw-4cc835dc_5696_40d1_90d8_b19b662aa90c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

Decisions by a High Court judge under the Criminal Proceedings (Search of Court Records) Rules 1974 to grant or refuse leave to search and copy criminal court records are either administrative or orders in or relating to criminal proceedings and are not appealable to the Court of Appeal under s 66 of the Judicature Act 1908; no alternative statutory right of appeal exists, therefore the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction and the appeal must be dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

MAU WHENUA INCORPORATED v WAYNE THOMAS MULLIGAN, JOHN FREDERICK COFFEY, HOLDEN HOHAIA, TOA WOODBINE POMARE, MAHINA HABER-PUKETAPU, KIM SKELTON, PAORA JENKINS-MEPHAM and HUIA PUKETAPU [2020] NZHC 3411

Stirrup [2020] NZHC 895

GRACE v ORION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED [2020] NZHC 701

FEHLING v APPLEBY [2015] NZHC 75

DOTCOM V ATTORNEY-GENERAL MEDIA HC AK CIV 2012-404-001928

MAFART AND PRIEUR V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA CA92/05