Counties Manukau District Health Board v Hawkins Construction North Island Limited (formerly Hawkins Construction Limited)

[2018] NZHC 1503

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2012-404-004482

[2018] NZHC 1503

BETWEEN

COUNTIES MANUKAU DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD

Plaintiff

AND

HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LIMITED (formerly HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION LIMITED)

Defendant

Hearing:	(On the papers)
Judgment:	22 June 2018

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

Access to Court Documents

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 June 2018 at 11.00 am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors:           Meredith Connell, Auckland

Kensington Swan, Auckland

Copy to:            Stuff

COUNTIES MANUKAU DISTRICT HEALTH BOARD v HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION NORTH ISLAND LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1503 [22 June 2018]

[1]    Ms Martin from the organisation known as Stuff has applied for access to Court documents, in particular the statement of claim and statement of defence on the proceeding between Counties Manukau District Health Board and Hawkins Construction North Island Limited (formerly Hawkins Construction Limited). The application is said to be made:

In the interest of open justice, and the public interest of this case. These documents have also already been provided to Radio New Zealand.

[2]    The file has been completed. Defendant’s counsel confirms the defendant abides the decision of the Court. Plaintiff’s counsel has no objection to provision of the statement of claim and statement of defence. The plaintiff acknowledges the documents are already in circulation, their release of them under a previous request made by Radio New Zealand which was granted to that extent.

[3]    The plaintiff does, however, oppose a more extensive search of the Court file on the grounds that:

(a)The file will disclose matters underlying a settlement reached. The settlement is commercially sensitive and the settlement agreement contains a confidentiality clause.

(b)A breach of the settlement agreement would likely put some of the outstanding terms of the settlement at risk.

(c)The disclosure of further documents would not be in the interests of the orderly and fair administration of justice.

[4]    In considering the application I note that after the substantive hearing (or settlement in this case) the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests has greater weight than would be the case during a substantive hearing.1

[5]    I also take into account the principle of open justice (particularly the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting of, and commenting on the outcome of

1      Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, r 13(c)(ii).

court proceedings), but consider that the orderly and fair administration of justice taken with the interest of confidentiality supports only limited disclosure in this case.2

[6]    The Registrar is directed to make available copies of the statement of claim and statement of defence to the applicant. Insofar as the request extends to a general search of the Court file it is declined.

Venning J

2      Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, r 12(a), (c), (e) and (f).