City Ltd (In Receivership) v Hudson

[2025] NZHC 400

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-001229

[2025] NZHC 400

BETWEEN

CITY LTD (In Receivership) First Plaintiff

KENSINGTON FINANCE LTD

Second Plaintiff

AND

BRIAN LESLIE HUDSON

Defendant

Counsel:

N W Coyle for Applicant

Judgment:

(On the papers)

5 March 2025

JUDGMENT OF GARDINER J

[Application to access court documents]

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 March 2025 at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Couch Harlowe Kovacevich (Auckland) for Applicant

CITY LTD v HUDSON [2025] NZHC 400 [5 March 2025]

[1]                 Hobsonville Consulting Ltd (HCL) and its director, Sarah Clarke, apply for access to documents on the court file for this proceeding. The proceeding was an application to remove a caveat lodged by Brian Hudson over a property at St Vincent Avenue owned by City Ltd (in receivership) (City), over which Kensington Finance Ltd (KFL) had a first mortgage. The ground for the caveat was an equitable mortgage granted by City to Mr Hudson prior to the KFL securities being registered.

[2]                 On 27 June 2023, the caveat was removed by consent. The proceeding is therefore at an end.

[3]                 The applicants explain that Mr Hudson, HCL and Ms Clarke gave a joint guarantee in respect of further loan agreements between City and another Hudson company, 121 Ltd, and KFL. The guarantee was secured by a mortgage over a property owned by HCL and a property owned by Ms Clarke (and other securities).

[4]                 Ms Clarke and HCL say they have claims against Mr Hudson arising out of the caveat he lodged on the St Vincent Avenue property. Accordingly, HCL requests access to any evidence which contains the agreement to mortgage allegedly granted to Mr Hudson on 21 December 2020, as well as any supporting or ancillary documents. HCL anticipates that this would likely be contained in Mr Hudson’s evidence in the caveat proceeding.

[5]                 The court has previously recognised that “the fair and orderly administration of justice” is assisted by ordering “access to a file which contains documents or relevance to proving a cause of action in another file”.1 I also recognise the alternative means by which HCL could obtain documents relevant to its claims, such as non-party discovery. However, this will generally only be considered when it is necessary in the sense that the applicant cannot reasonably obtain the information by simpler means.2

1      E-Trans International Finance Ltd v Kiwibank Ltd [2015] NZHC 2164 at [12]. I note this was decided under r 3.13 of the High Court Rules 2016, which acted as the relevant provision prior to the enactment of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

2      RFD Finance Ltd v Thorn [2019] NZHC 2157 at [28].

[6]                 Having regard to those principles, the fact that the proceeding is now at an end, and that no party has objected to access being given, I am prepared to grant access to the relevant documents from the caveat proceeding.

[7]                 The applicants indicated the request was for any documents relating to an agreement to mortgage allegedly entered into on 21 December 2020. On review of the file, I have identified the following relevant documents:

(a)City Ltd’s originating application for removal of a caveat dated 16 June 2023;

(b)the affidavit of Neil James Dowsett dated 16 June 2023; and

(c)the affidavit of Mr Hudson dated 23 June 2023.

[8]Accordingly, I order access to the documents identified at [7].

Gardiner J