New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Public interest balancing

Legal area

Court

12 May 2023

L v A PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT COMMITTEE [2023] NZHC 1151

Citation

[2023] NZHC 1151
Court

High Court

The appropriate appellate standard for review of Tribunal decisions under ss95 and 99 is by rehearing consistent with Austin, Nichols; applying that standard, the Tribunal did not err in revoking name suppression because the risk that publication would lead to identification in the stayed proceeding was speculative and vanishingly small, many common facts were already publicly available, the public interest in transparency and accountability and knowledge of a practitioner repeatedly found guilty outweighed the appellant's private interest, and the offered undertaking not to practise did not…
7 Sept 2022

KŌKAKO LODGE TRUST v AUCKLAND REGIONAL PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE [2022] NZHC 2280 [7 September 2022]

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2280
Court

High Court

Threshold preservation was established but interim relief was declined because the applicant's substantive case appeared weak: the ARPHS decision to impose a closure condition was supported by the Guidelines, site inspection and evidence of prior non-compliance, and a reasonable decision-maker could have reached the same conclusion; the public interest, operational timing and significant financial consequences of delay outweighed the applicant's private prejudice from temporary closure.
5 Feb 2021

THE COMMISSIONER, THE NEW ZEALAND POLICE v HANCOX [2021] NZHC 100

Citation

[2021] NZHC 100
Court

High Court

The media applicant is entitled to access the formal court record as of right; on balancing open justice and freedom of expression against privacy and confidentiality interests, the Court held those public interest values outweigh the privacy interests in this matter and granted access to the formal record and permitted inspection of additional file documents to assist understanding of the proceeding.
30 Nov 2020

CHURCH PROPERTY TRUSTEES v PAUL SMITH EARTHMOVING 2002 LIMITED [2020] NZHC 3156 [30 November 2020]

Citation

[2020] NZHC 3156
Court

High Court

The application was refused because the applicant failed to demonstrate a public interest sufficient to outweigh the confidentiality and privacy interests and the orderly administration of justice at the pre‑hearing stage as required by rr 12–13; no protective conditions were offered by the applicant and confidentiality must be preserved while the proceeding is at an early stage.
13 Dec 2019

ADAM RAPHAEL GREENBAUM v SOUTHERN CROSS HOSPITALS LIMITED [2019] NZSC 146 [13 December 2019]

Citation

[2019] NZSC 146
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was dismissed because the issues were essentially factual and involved the Court of Appeal's discretionary balancing under s 69; no novel point of law or sufficient prospect of disturbing the Court of Appeal's assessment was shown, and the applicant's earlier acceptance of confidentiality added weight to the decision to refuse disclosure.
25 Oct 2019

NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED v MCMAHON [2019] NZHC 2727

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2727
Court

High Court

There was an insufficient evidential foundation to satisfy the threshold in s205(2)(c) that publication of the New Zealand offending would be likely to endanger Mr McMahon's safety by causing deterioration in his health; accordingly the appeal is allowed and the District Court's permanent suppression order is set aside (the discretionary balancing was not reached).
18 Sept 2019

GREENBAUM v SOUTHERN CROSS HOSPITALS LIMITED [2019] NZCA 438

Citation

[2019] NZCA 438
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court upheld the High Court's refusal to order disclosure under s69 Evidence Act 2006: on the evidence the public interest in preserving the confidentiality of private hospital credentialling (necessary to secure candid evaluative material and protect patient safety) outweighed the public interest in disclosure in the proceeding; the applicant's waiver and the Privacy Act considerations supported confidentiality; proposed restricted-access alternatives were insufficient to avoid the chilling harm.
20 Oct 2017

R v HENRY [2017] NZHC 2563

Citation

[2017] NZHC 2563
Court

High Court

After in camera review of records from September 2015 to September 2016 the Court found no information that bore on the complainant's truthfulness or reliability, no evidence of alcohol or illicit drug use, and no medication changes proximate to the alleged events; because the records were not relevant to the defence, disclosure was refused and s29 balancing was unnecessary.
22 Mar 2017

FINANCIAL SERVICES COMPLAINTS LTD v CHIEF OMBUDSMAN [2017] NZHC 525

Citation

[2017] NZAR 521
Court

High Court

Section 28A authorises the Chief Ombudsman to consider public interest and risks of proliferation/confusion to protect the integrity of the Office; the established policy is not inconsistent with the statutory purpose provided it allows exceptions; on the facts the refusal to permit FSCL to use the name was not unreasonable and judicial review fails.
28 Jan 2016

GUY v POLICE [2016] NZHC 27

Citation

[2016] NZHC 27
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed because the appellant failed to establish that publication of his name would be likely to cause extreme hardship to his mother; the judge correctly found the incremental stress from publication speculative and largely attributable to the offending itself, so the threshold for suppression was not met.