Boult v Crux Publishing Ltd - [2022] NZCA 473

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA90/2022
[2022] NZCA 473

BETWEEN	J BOULT Appellant
AND	CRUX PUBLISHING LIMITED Respondent

Hearing:	22 September 2022
Court:	Gilbert, Brewer and Moore JJ
Counsel:	G J Ryan and N J McKessar for Appellant R K P Stewart for Respondent A C Beck as counsel assisting
Judgment:	7 October 2022 at 2 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed.
BThe High Court judgment is set aside.
CThe application is remitted back to the High Court for determination by a Judge.
DThere is no order for costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Gilbert J)

Mr Boult is the mayor of Queenstown Lakes District. He was a former director of Stonewood Homes New Zealand Ltd and Holmfirth Group Ltd both of which were placed in receivership and in liquidation. In 2018, the liquidators brought proceedings in the High Court at Christchurch against Mr Boult and a Mr Mettrick (another former director) claiming they had breached their obligations under various provisions of the Companies Act 1993 in managing the affairs of these companies (the Proceedings). The Proceedings did not proceed to trial and were never adjudicated upon. They were settled prior to trial on partially confidential terms. The liquidators reported on the settlement in their statutory report dated 19 November 2021.
Crux Publishing Ltd (Crux), publishes an online news website covering matters of public interest in the Southern Lakes region. It applied pursuant to the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Access Rules) for access to court documents relating to the Proceedings. Mr Boult opposed the application. In a judgment delivered on 23 February 2022, the application was granted in part by Associate Judge Paulsen.[1]
[1]Cain v Mettrick [2022] NZHC 258 [High Court judgment].
Mr Boult appealed against the judgment. After the appeal was filed, French J raised a jurisdictional question as to whether Associate Judges are empowered to deal with these types of applications. Counsel subsequently agreed that applications under the Access Rules must be determined by a Judge of the High Court, not an Associate Judge. Rather than dispose of the appeal without the benefit of contrary argument, Brown J arranged for the appointment of Mr Beck as counsel assisting to present opposing argument.
We are grateful to Mr Beck for his helpful submissions. After examining the content and purpose of the relevant legislative provisions, surveying the position under predecessor provisions, and considering other contextual matters, he ultimately concludes, in agreement with other counsel, that Associate Judges do not have the power to make determinations under the Access Rules. In these circumstances, our reasons for dismissing the appeal and remitting the matter to the High Court for determination by a Judge can be relatively brief.
Section 20 of the Senior Courts Act 2016 (the Act) provides that an Associate Judge has the jurisdiction and powers of the High Court in respect of the matters listed and of a High Court…

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 Boult v Crux Publishing Ltd

Details

AGLC: Boult v Crux Publishing Ltd [2022] NZCA 473
Case: [2022] NZCA 473
Decision Date: 7 October 2022 at 2 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mr Boult, the mayor of Queenstown Lakes District, was a former director of two companies, Stonewood Homes New Zealand Ltd and Holmfirth Group Ltd. Both companies were placed in receivership and liquidation, and the liquidators brought proceedings against Mr Boult and another former director, Mr Mettrick, in the High Court at Christchurch, alleging breaches of their obligations under the Companies Act 1993 in managing the affairs of the companies. These proceedings did not proceed to trial and were settled before trial on partially confidential terms. Crux Publishing Ltd, which publishes an online news website, applied for access to court documents relating to these proceedings. Mr Boult opposed the application, and in a judgment delivered on 23 February 2022, the application was granted in part by Associate Judge Paulsen. Mr Boult appealed against this judgment, and the appeal was heard on 22 September 2022.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Associate Judges have the power to determine applications for access to court documents under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. Counsel for both parties agreed that applications under the Access Rules must be determined by a Judge of the High Court, not an Associate Judge. The Court of Appeal agreed with this position, finding that the Senior Courts Act 2016 does not confer express power on Associate Judges to determine these types of applications, and the Access Rules do not provide otherwise. Associate Judges have not historically had jurisdiction to determine these types of applications, and there is nothing to indicate that any change was intended when the Access Rules were promulgated.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment, and remitted the matter back to the High Court for determination by a Judge. There was no order for costs.

Orders