Cain v Mettrick - [2022] NZHC 420

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2018-409-000548

[2022] NZHC 420

IN THE MATTER
of an application by Crux Publishing

Limited to access court documents pursuant to the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017

BETWEEN

R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of STONEWOOD HOMES LIMITED (In

Receivership and Liquidation),
STONEWOOD HOMES NEW ZEALAND

LIMITED (In Receivership and Liquidation) and HOLMFIRTH GROUP LIMITED (In

Receivership and Liquidation) Plaintiffs

AND

B A METTRICK

First Defendant

AND

J BOULT

Second Defendant

Hearing: 28 February 2022 (by way of telephone conference) Further submissions filed for Mr Boult on 4 March 2022

Appearances:

R K P Stewart for Applicant, Crux Publishing Ltd G J Ryan for Second Defendant, Mr Boult

Judgment:

10 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 March 2022 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

CAIN v METTRICK (re stay) [2022] NZHC 420 [10 March 2022]

[1] On 23 February 2022, I determined an application by Crux Publishing Ltd (Crux) to access documents from the court file pursuant to rr 8 and 11 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

[2]The orders I made included:1

I grant Crux access to any statement of claim, statement of defence or statement in reply filed by any party. This is subject to the condition that in any report of a new allegation made in the plaintiffs’ amended statement of claim dated 4 June 2021, Crux is to make it clear the defendants did not respond to the allegation before settlement was reached.

[3] Mr Boult has filed an appeal from this order and an application for a stay. I granted a temporary stay pending hearing from counsel. On 28 February 2022, I heard from Mr Ryan and Mr Stewart and called for further submissions from Mr Ryan, which I received.

[4] The application for a stay is made pursuant to r 12(3) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. The relevant principles are set out in McGechan on Procedure which I summarise as follows:2

(a)The Court must balance competing rights of the party who obtained the judgment appealed from against the need to preserve the appellant’s position against the event of the appeal succeeding.

(b)The object, where it can be fairly achieved, must be to arrange matters such that when the appeal comes to be heard, the appeal Court may be able to do justice between the parties, whatever the outcome of the appeal may be.

(c)The factors to be taken into account in the balancing exercise include:

(i)whether the appeal may be rendered nugatory by the lack of a stay;

1 Cain v Mettrick [2022] NZHC 258 at [38].
2 Andrew Beck and others McGechan on Procedure (looseleaf ed, Brookers) at [CR12.01].

(ii)the bona fides of the applicant as to the prosecution of the appeal;

(iii)whether the successful party…

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 Cain v Mettrick

Details

AGLC: Cain v Mettrick [2022] NZHC 420
Case: [2022] NZHC 420
Decision Date: 10 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the New Zealand High Court, Associate Judge Paulsen presided over an application by Crux Publishing Limited to access court documents from a case involving multiple parties. The plaintiffs, R J Cain and R G Logan, as liquidators of three companies in receivership and liquidation, brought the case against B A Mettrick and J Boult. The court had to decide whether Crux Publishing Limited should be granted access to certain documents in the case under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, and if so, under what conditions. The key legal issue was whether Crux's request to access the documents should be refused due to their prior reporting on the litigation and other matters, which raised concerns about their intention to engage in fair, accurate, and unbiased reporting.

Associate Judge Paulsen considered the principles for granting a stay, as outlined in McGechan on Procedure. These principles included balancing the rights of the party who obtained the judgment appealed from against the need to preserve the appellant's position against the event of the appeal succeeding. The judge also considered factors such as whether the appeal may be rendered nugatory by the lack of a stay, the bona fides of the applicant as to the prosecution of the appeal, whether the successful party will be injuriously affected by the stay, the effect on third parties, the novelty and importance of questions involved, the public interest in the proceeding, and the overall balance of convenience.

The judge concluded that it would not be appropriate to allow Crux access to the documents even on the proposed condition that they not publish a report or account of the information they contain. The appeal raised an interesting issue, and the overall balance of circumstances favoured granting a stay. Pending the hearing of Mr Boult's appeal, the court granted a stay of the order made in the earlier judgment. No order for costs was made.

Orders