New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

S 69 evidence act 2006

Legal area

Court

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.
21 May 2018

NICOLAS ALFRED HAGER v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 1138

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1138
Court

High Court

Applying the s 69 Evidence Act 2006 criteria and following the approach taken by Dobson J, the Court concluded that disclosure would likely cause significant harm by identifying suspects/persons of interest, revealing confidential sources or investigative methods; accordingly the Court directed that documents listed in Part 3 remain confidential in whole and those in Part 4 remain confidential in part, while noting some documents are irrelevant or have already been disclosed.
9 Apr 2013

DOTCOM v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZHC 695

Citation

[2013] NZHC 695
Court

High Court

The Court held that the redacted portion of the STG form was irrelevant to the issues in the proceeding and thus need not be disclosed; the covert camera material fell within s 69 as confidential information because an assurance of anonymity was given to A and disclosure would harm the public interest in preserving similar relationships and investigative activities, and on balance the public interest in maintaining confidentiality outweighed the public interest in disclosure while appropriate in‑camera procedures would address any unfairness to the plaintiffs.
30 Jan 2009

ANZ NATIONAL BANK LTD AND ANOR V TOWER INSURANCE LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-007271

Citation

openlaw-21ca7489_4a30_4187_b581_1b1eb0108718.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held plaintiffs are entitled to interview and, subject to usual processes, subpoena the witness; Tower and its solicitors may remind the witness of duties of confidence but may not prevent or preclude the witness from meeting, being interviewed or attending court; the Court will not grant advance immunity from consequences of any breach of confidence and objections under s 69 Evidence Act 2006 must be raised at the hearing of evidence.

New Zealand Case Law

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

NICOLAS ALFRED HAGER v HER MAJESTY’S ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2018] NZHC 1138

DOTCOM v ATTORNEY-GENERAL [2013] NZHC 695

ANZ NATIONAL BANK LTD AND ANOR V TOWER INSURANCE LTD AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-007271