Christie v Molloy - [2017] NZHC 508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2016-404-81 [2017] NZHC 508

BETWEEN
JULIE CLAIRE MOLLOY CHRISTIE

Plaintiff

AND

INGRID DOLINA MOLLOY First Defendant

LEO JOHN MOLLOY Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:
Appearances:

MD OʼBrien and RD Butler for plaintiff

ID Molloy, first defendant in person

Judgment:

20 March 2017

JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

[ON MEDIA APPLICATION BY NATIONAL BUSINESS REVIEW]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 March 2017 at 3:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors/Counsel: Missingham Law, Auckland (P Missingham) Wynyard Wood, Auckland (Z Wackenier)

Copies to: MD O’Brien QC, Auckland VTM Bruton QC, Auckland RD Butler, Auckland
LJ Molloy, Auckland

And to: C Gibson, National Business Review, Auckland

Christie v Molloy [2017] NZHC 508 [20 March 2017]

Background

[1] Campbell Gibson, a journalist from the National Business Review (“NBR”), has applied to access the Court file for these proceedings:

The NBR would like access to a copy of the court file for CIV-2016-404-81: JULIE CLAIRE M CHRISTIE v INGRID DOLINA MOLLOY & ANOR. We understand the case was heard in open court on Friday, March 3, which means the information of the dispute is already publically available.

The matter is of public interest because it involves a high-profile and wealthy New Zealander.

We make this application with the knowledge of rule 3.13 and 3.9 – in particular:

(c) the principle open justice, namely, encouraging fair and accurate reporting of, and comment on, court hearings and decisions, and:

(d) the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information.

[2] The parties have had the opportunity to respond to the NBR’s application. The plaintiff opposes the application. The first defendant has no objection to the NBR accessing the file. The second defendant has not responded to the application.

Relevant principles

[3] Rule 3.9 of the High Court Rules 2016 governs access to the Court file during the “substantive hearing stage”. That is when the main matter is being tried in open court; it does not encompass the hearing of interlocutory applications.1 During this stage, there is a presumption (subject to a Judge’s overriding discretion)2 that any
person may access:3

(a) any pleading, reference, notice, or application filed in the court:

(b) affidavits, depositions, or other written statements admitted into evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

(c) documents admitted into evidence for the purposes of the hearing:

(d) if any evidence given orally at the hearing has been transcribed, a transcript of that evidence.

1      Rule 3.9(1).
2      Rule 3.9(3).
3      Rule 3.9(2).

[4] Although this proceeding was listed as being heard in Court on 3 March

2016, that hearing concerned an interlocutory application for adjournment. The hearing was held in chambers not in open court. Therefore, r 3.9 does not apply and the application falls to be considered under r 3.13.

[5] When considering an application under r 3.13, the Court must take into account the nature of, and the reasons for, the application, and also…

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 Christie v Molloy

Details

AGLC: Christie v Molloy [2017] NZHC 508
Case: [2017] NZHC 508
Decision Date: 20 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Fitzgerald J addressed an application by a journalist from the National Business Review (NBR) seeking access to the court file for the proceedings Christie v Molloy. The plaintiff, Julie Claire Molloy Christie, is suing the first defendant, Ingrid Dolina Molloy, and the second defendant, Leo John Molloy, over private and family-related matters. The NBR sought access to the court file under the principles of open justice and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. However, the plaintiff opposed the application, while the first defendant had no objection, and the second defendant did not respond.

The court considered the application under Rule 3.13 of the High Court Rules 2016, focusing on the nature of the application and the relevant factors listed in Rule 3.16. The court noted that the proceedings had not yet reached a substantive hearing and involved private and family matters. Fitzgerald J concluded that, at this pre-trial stage, the parties' privacy considerations outweighed the principles of open justice and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. The court found that the publication of contested but untested allegations at this stage would not be conducive to the fair administration of justice and might distract the parties from seeking an extra-judicial resolution.

Fitzgerald J declined the NBR's application but noted that this decision was without prejudice to the applicant's right to make another application at a later stage. The court emphasized that once any judgments were issued, they would become publicly accessible in the usual way.

Orders