13 Apr 2021
Access was granted because the applicant is a close relative, the proceedings are historical (concluded 48 years earlier), both parties are deceased, the file did not disclose material engaging confidentiality or privacy interests, and the public interest in open justice outweighed any privacy concerns; a non‑dissemination condition was imposed under r 11(7)(a)(ii).
11 Sept 2020
The Judge held that although NZ Pork provided sufficiently particular reasons under r 11(2)(c) and the absence of proposed protective conditions under r 11(2)(d) was not fatal, the balancing required by rules 12 and 13 favoured protecting privacy and the orderly administration of justice over disclosure to a private non‑party pursuing its own interests; accordingly access to the applicants' submissions and affidavits was refused while access to the formal court record and the statement of claim was granted (subject to redactions).
4 Oct 2018
Access to the specified court documents was granted to the Dominion Post and Stuff for reporting purposes, subject to suppression of the unredacted affidavit of Helen Beck and provision of a Commissioner‑redacted affidavit because redaction was necessary to protect privacy, confidentiality, officer identity, commercially sensitive bank details and non‑disclosable Inland Revenue material.
10 Nov 2017
Because the restraining proceedings were interim, there was no active contested hearing and privacy and orderly case management interests outweighed open justice at this pre‑hearing stage, the Court denied access to the full file but granted access only to a copy of the application for restraining orders (excluding supporting affidavits) and a copy of the restraining order.
1 Oct 2014
Access to the court file is granted because there is no opposition and strong public interest, subject to excluding the affidavit dated 31 January 2014 of Bevan Richard Miles because its detailed, one‑sided interlocutory material could create an unbalanced view and open justice considerations are weaker at the interlocutory stage under r 3.16.
6 May 2014
The application was declined because the material relevant to the applicant was already fully disclosed in the public judgment, the applicant's legitimate interest was satisfied by that disclosure, and disclosure of the affidavit would unnecessarily expose private, non‑relevant information of the defendants.