Applications for access to Court files

[2017] NZHC 172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

D 1161/1912 [2017] NZHC 172

UNDER

Part 3 of the High Court Rules

IN THE MATTER OF

applications for access to the Court files

Fuller v Fuller D 1161/1912

Hearing:	On the papers
Judgment:	16 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF WILLIAMS J

[1]      Virginia Rundle has applied to access the Court file for Fuller v Fuller. Mr Fuller was her grandfather.  The file concerns his divorce with his first wife.  She is the granddaughter of Mr Fuller and his second wife.  She is undertaking research on the family history with a view to writing a book.

[2]      I apologise for the delay in issuing this judgment.  The file remained in the High   Court   building   following   the   November   earthquake   when   the   Court temporarily relocated.

[3]      Although  the  file  has  been  transferred  to Archives,  the  request  is  to  be determined pursuant to HCR 3.13 and 3.16.1    Rule 3.16 sets out the matters I must take into account. The particularly relevant factors here are:

(a)      The protection of confidentiality and privacy interests.2   While the file concerns private matters, over 100 years has passed and the people directly involved are now dead.  The need to protect confidentiality

and privacy in this context is minimal.3

1      Re Livingstone v Livingstone [2015] NZHC 2575, [2015] NZAR 1827 at [3]-[4].

2      High Court Rules 2016 r 3.16(b).

3      See the discussion in Livingstone, above n 1, at [26]-[34].

Re Applications for access to Court files [2017] NZHC 172 [16 February 2017]

(b)The freedom to seek, receive and impart information.4    The freedom to undertake historical research, and in particular to research the circumstances of one’s own family, is important.

(c)      Whether the document is subject to any restriction under HCR 3.12,5 which includes any court order limiting or prohibiting access or publication.6   The Judge prohibited the publication of the evidence in this case.   In the absence of any judicial order to the contrary, this suppression remains in place.  Additionally, the file remains classified by Archives New Zealand as restricted access.7   However, in my view given that the case is over 100 years old, this is not a factor that strongly militates against granting access.

[4]      Weighing up these factors, it is clear that access should be granted.   The privacy interests, even taking into account the suppression order, are minimal given the age of the case.  By contrast, the freedom to seek information on one’s family history is an important one.

[5]      Ms Rundle should note however that she will not be able to publish any material from the file unless the suppression order is lifted.   She can make an application to do so, which should be referred to myself, as I am now familiar with this file.

[6]      Accordingly, I order that:

(a)      Ms Rundle and her immediate family are permitted to access and view the file, under the supervision of Archives New Zealand;

(b)she may take notes and copies of any documents for her own use but these must not be distributed; and

4      Rule 3.16(d).

5      Rule 3.16(e).

6      Rule 3.12(1)(a).

7      Pursuant to ss 43 and 44 of the Public Records Act 2005.

(c)       if she wishes to publish any materials from the file, such application is to be directed to myself.

Williams J

cc       Virginia Rundle