Cain v Mettrick - [2019] NZHC 2563

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2018-409-000548

[2019] NZHC 2563

BETWEEN
R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Stonewood Homes Limited (in Receivership and Liquidation

First Plaintiffs

AND

R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Stonewood Homes New Zealand Limited (in Receivership and Liquidation)`

Second Plaintiffs

AND

R J CAIN and R G LOGAN as liquidators of Holmfirth Group Limited (in Receivership and Liquidation)

Third Plaintiffs

AND

B A METTRICK

First Defendant

AND

J BOULT

Second Defendant

Hearing: (Determined on the papers)

Counsel:

J W A Johnson, M G Colson and J Taylor for Plaintiffs W J Palmer and O Peers for First Defendant

G J Ryan for Second Defendant

Judgment:

9 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

CAIN v METTRICK [2019] NZHC 2563 [9 October 2019]

This judgment was delivered by me at 11.00 am on 9 October 2019 pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Introduction

[1] The plaintiffs are the liquidators of Stonewood Homes Ltd, Stonewood Homes New Zealand Ltd and Holmfirth Group Ltd. The defendants are former directors of the companies. The companies went into liquidation with large unsecured creditors’ claims. The plaintiffs are seeking damages alleging breaches of directors’ duties. The claims are defended. This judgment concerns two requests for access to court documents relating to this proceeding.

Allied Press

[2] The first request is made by Ms Debbie Porteous of Allied Press. She applies for access to the entire court file but “in particular a recent application by the defendants (we do not have further details of what the application is for).”

[3] The reason given for wanting access to the documents is because the second defendant, Mr Boult, is standing for election as Mayor of the Queenstown Lakes District Council and voters should have information about this proceeding made available to them.

Fairfax Media

[4] The second request is made by Mr Martin van Beynan of Fairfax Media. He refers to a decision of Mander J which concerned an application by Mr Boult that the plaintiffs disclose the identity of their litigation funder.1 Mr Beynan applies for access to documents identifying the litigation funder as well as further applications “filed by Mr Boult and affidavits supporting and opposing the applications.”

[5] The reasons given for wanting access to the documents are that the public have a legitimate interest in the identity of the litigation funder to scrutinise their interests and motivations and, referring to Mr Boult, because it is important that electors are fully informed on what is being alleged or claimed in litigation about election candidates.

1 Cain v Mettrick [2019] NZHC 802, [2019] NZAR 668.

[6]The requests were provided to the parties and are opposed by them all.

[7] As the requests share common aspects and raise similar issues it is convenient to deal with them together.

The relevant considerations

[8] Section 173(1) of the Senior Courts…

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 [2019] NZHC 2563
Case: [2019] NZHC 2563
Decision Date: 9 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The liquidators of Stonewood Homes Limited, Stonewood Homes New Zealand Limited and Holmfirth Group Limited sought damages against the former directors of the companies for alleged breaches of directors’ duties. The defendants opposed the claims. This judgment concerns two requests for access to court documents relating to this proceeding made by Allied Press and Fairfax Media. The applicants sought access to the entire court file and, in particular, a recent application by the defendants and documents identifying the litigation funder. The requests were opposed by all parties.

The court considered whether to grant access to the documents pursuant to the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. The court was required to consider the nature of, and the reasons for, the requests and a number of matters set out in the Rules. The court considered the principle of open justice and the freedom to seek, receive and impart information against the orderly and fair administration of justice, the right to bring and defend civil proceedings without the disclosure of commercially sensitive information, the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests and any other relevant matter. The court found that the matters supporting granting access to the documents were not strong and were outweighed by the other matters that it had considered.

The court declined the requests for access to the applications and affidavits filed in support and opposition to them.

Orders