Community of the Sacred Name Society or Trust Board v Attorney-General

The Church Property Trustees (CPT) sought access to the pleadings in a proceeding between the plaintiff, Community of the Sacred Name Society or Trust Board, the defendant, the Attorney-General, and the third party, Paul Smith Earthmoving (2002) Ltd (PSE). The plaintiff had alleged asbestos contamination of land due to hardfill provided by PSE, commissioned by the Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (CERA). CPT, owning or controlling properties affected by PSE's actions, sought access to the pleadings to inform potential future litigation. The plaintiff and defendant had no objections, but PSE opposed the application. The court considered the application under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, particularly Rules 11, 12, and 13, which outline the process for granting access and the factors to be considered. The court evaluated the balance between open justice, confidentiality, and the orderly administration of justice. It also considered the principle of open justice and the freedom to seek and impart information.

The court found no hierarchy among the considerations listed in Rule 12 and noted that open justice was not the paramount consideration, particularly before the proceedings reached trial. The court held that the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests and the fair administration of justice might require limiting access to documents before the proceedings reached trial. These considerations must be weighed against the principle of open justice and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. The court found that CPT's proposed condition to limit access to the documents to its lawyers for seeking or providing legal advice adequately managed any concerns about privacy, confidentiality, reputational damage, and commercial sensitivity.

Accordingly, the court allowed CPT access to the requested documents on the condition that Wynn Williams, the solicitors for CPT, and CPT would use those documents only for seeking, obtaining, or providing legal advice and would not disclose them to any unrelated third party. The court considered that granting access would encourage the fair administration of justice by allowing persons with a similar interest in the issues to be better informed about the proceedings.