ASB Bank Limited v Commissioner of Inland Revenue

[2013] NZHC 3042

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-4038 [2013] NZHC 3042

IN THE MATTER OF       the Tax Administration Act 1994

BETWEEN  ASB BANK LIMITED Plaintiff

ANDCOMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE

Defendant

Hearing:                   On the papers

Judgment:                18 November 2013

JUDGMENT OF WINKELMANN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 November 2013 at 12.30 pm pursuant to

Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

ASB BANK LIMITED v COMMISSIONER OF INLAND REVENUE [2013] NZHC 3042 [18 November 2013]

[1]      Mr Gareth Vaughn of Interest.co.nz a new media outlet, requests access to the statement of claim and statement of defence.   Because this proceeding has yet to reach the hearing phase, there is no presumption in favour of access.  Rather Rules

3.11 – 3.16 govern this application.  The permission of the Court is necessary for

Mr Vaughn to obtain access to these documents.

[2]      The views of the parties have been sought.  The plaintiff does not oppose the application.   Counsel for the Commissioner points out that the proceeding is at a very early stage and that there is a presumption against access at this time.  They say that the default position is that the Court will not usually grant access, citing Yarrow

v Finnigan1 and Hotchin v APN New Zealand Ltd2 as authority for that proposition.

[3]      I am satisfied that there is no general presumption against the grant of access. Rather, as the authorities relied upon by the Commissioner make clear, the Court must undertake the evaluative exercise described in r 3.16.  Having weighed all the r 3.16 factors that are relevant I am satisfied that the application should be granted. Although the record is not yet complete, the defendants have filed a statement of defence in reply to the statement of claim.  The pleadings that will be released to Mr Vaughn  are  therefore  complete  in  as  much  as  they  record  the  plaintiff’s allegations, the defendant’s response.   No unfairness therefore arises.   Moreover there is considerable public interest in matters concerning taxation and I consider

that the principle of open justice favours disclosure. Accordingly, access is granted.

1      Yarrow v Finnigan HC New Plymouth CIV-2011-443-330, 15 July 2011 at [22].

2      Hotchin v APN New Zealand Ltd HC Auckland CIV-2011-404-002464, 3 June 2011.