Baytown Investments Limited v Gardon Limited

[2018] NZHC 1713

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND HAMILTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA
KIRIKIRIROA ROHE

CIV-2015-419-433 [2018] NZHC 1713

BETWEEN

BAYTOWN INVESTMENTS LIMITED

Plaintiff

AND

AND

GARDON LIMITED

First Defendant

GERARD LOGAN DONALD

Second Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers at Hamilton
Judgment:	13 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 July 2018 at 10 am pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors:

Lowndes, Auckland Nielsen Law, Hamilton

Counsel:

P J Morgan QC, Hamilton A Galbraith QC, Auckland

c.c. A Fox, New Zealand Herald

BAYTOWN INVESTMENTS LIMITED v GARDON LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1713 [13 July 2018]

[1]                 Andrea Fox, a senior business reporter with the New Zealand Herald newspaper has applied “to access Court documents about” this file. Ms Fox’s application provides:

I seek the information to write a news story about the case.

The high level of public interest and the principles of open justice favour the request being granted. If the Court is minded (under section 13 and 13 Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017) to decide that confidentiality should be given greater weight given the early stage of the proceeding, the Herald requests that any information deemed sensitive be redacted, rather than access to all information/documents be denied.

Thank you.

[2]                 The application is opposed by the parties. In particular the parties point to the fact that they have now agreed to refer the dispute to private arbitration and as a result a hearing is no longer sought in the High Court. Instead the proceedings have been adjourned to a Chambers list pending a likely formal discontinuance once that private arbitration has been completed.

[3]                 Given this position, as well as the lack of specificity with regard to the request to access documents, I am satisfied it is appropriate to refuse Ms Fox’s request. Specifically, Rule 13(a) of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Document) Rules 2017 make it clear that “before the substantive hearing, the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests and the orderly and fair administration of justice may require that access to documents be limited”. In this case given the parties no longer seek to have the dispute determined in this Court the caution given by r 13 is only reinforced, and any access to documents is likely to provide only a partial and/or distorted view of the dispute and/or encourage inappropriate speculation with regard to the dispute and the relationship between the parties.

[4]                 In the event that the proceedings are not however resolved by private arbitration and the parties seek to return to have their dispute resolved by this Court, leave is reserved for Ms Fox to make a further application for access to the documents at that point.

Powell J