A Limited v C Limited - [2018] NZHC 3433

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2018-409-432

[2018] NZHC 3433

BETWEEN
A LIMITED

First Plaintiff

B LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

AND

C LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing: 20 December 2018 (On the papers)

Appearances:

G Riach and M Crimp for Plaintiffs

J Baigent and J Dickson for Defendant

Judgment:

20 December 2018

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J

[1] These proceedings relate to the disputed termination by C Limited of its contractual relationships with A Limited and B Limited. Those companies sought interim injunctive relief which I declined in my judgment of 16 August 2018.1

[2] At the conclusion of the judgment, I made an order prohibiting publication of the names and identifying particulars of the parties and suppressed passages of the judgment. That order was made on an interim basis until final disposition of the proceeding or further order of the Court.2

1 A Ltd v C Ltd [2018] NZHC 2111.
2 A Ltd v C Ltd [2018] NZHC 2139.

A LTD v C LTD [2018] NZHC 3433 [20 December 2018]

[3] At the commencement of the proceeding, I also granted a joint application which resulted in the making of the following orders:

(a)The entire Court file is not to be accessed without the permission of a Judge (refer r 5 of the Senior Courts (Access to Documents) Rules 2017).

(b)The exhibits to Mr [X’s] affidavit labelled “O”, “Q”, “R” and “S”, contained in exhibit volume CB1 and all exhibits contained in exhibit volumes CB2 and CB3 are to be treated as strictly confidential and sealed on the Court file.

(c)All employees and former employees of C Limited named in the exhibits to Mr [X’s] affidavit are granted name suppression in respect of their names and any and all particulars that could lead to their identification.

The application

[4] The parties have now settled the proceeding and it is to be discontinued. However, prior to that step being formally taken, the parties jointly seek final suppression orders on the same terms as those made on an interim basis to date. The grounds relied upon in seeking final orders are the same as those put forward in support of the interim orders.

[5] It is submitted that without final orders being made a number of persons referred to in the evidence will be identifiable, at least to those involved in the life insurance industry, and that this will result in distress and anxiety to those individuals. The allegations which gave rise to the contractual dispute involve female employees of C Limited and concern matters of a private nature.

[6] The parties submit there is no public interest in knowing the identities of the parties or witnesses, nor other persons referred to in the evidence. The point is made that this is not a case where disclosure is required to protect or inform the public, or to encourage other potential claimants to…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading A Limited v C Limited

Details

AGLC: A Limited v C Limited [2018] NZHC 3433
Case: [2018] NZHC 3433
Decision Date: 20 December 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, A Limited and B Limited, the plaintiffs, sought to suppress the names and identifying particulars of the parties involved in their contractual dispute with C Limited, the defendant. The case involved the termination of contractual relationships by C Limited and was initially denied interim injunctive relief by the court. The court had already issued an interim order prohibiting the publication of the names and identifying particulars of the parties and suppressing certain passages of the judgment. Now, with the proceeding settled, the parties jointly seek final suppression orders on the same terms as those made on an interim basis.

The court had to decide whether the suppression of the names of the parties and witnesses was justified, considering the principles of open justice and the right to freedom of expression. The court considered the private nature of the allegations, the potential distress and anxiety to the individuals involved, and the lack of public interest in knowing the identities of the parties or the details of the case.

The court held that the suppression of the names of the parties, including Mr X's identity, was justified to protect the legitimate interests of witnesses and other persons who were entitled to privacy in respect of intensely private or personal matters. The court also lifted the suppression of certain redacted passages in the judgment, but maintained the suppression of specific passages that carried a risk of identifying particular employees.

The court made a final order prohibiting the publication of the names or identifying particulars of the parties to this proceeding, as well as final suppression orders on the suppressed redacted passages and the names of employees and former employees referred to in the exhibits. The court also maintained the existing orders regarding access to the court file and the sealing of particular exhibits.

Orders