Crown Asset Management Limited v Nattrass - [2015] NZHC 1435

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2011-409-2413 [2015] NZHC 1435

BETWEEN
CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT

LIMITED Plaintiff

AND

STUART JOHN NATTRASS First Defendant

EDWARD ORAL SULLIVAN Second Defendant

ROBERT ALEXANDER WHITE Third Defendant

MARGARET JANE HUBBARD as executrix of the estate of the late ALLAN JAMES HUBBARD

Fourth Defendant

AND

VERO LIABILITY INSURANCE LIMITED

Third Party

Hearing:
24 June 2015

(On the papers)

Appearances:

M D Arthur and J A McMillan for Plaintiff
P C Creagh and G P Curry for First Defendant
PHB Hall QC, B R Green and K H Cook for Second Defendant
R B Squire QC and T M Gresson for Third Defendant
A S Butler and O C Gascoigne for Fourth Defendant
M C Smith, O M De Pont and C T Walker for Third Party

Judgment:

24 June 2015

JUDGMENT OF MANDER J ON ACCESS

[1] Further to my minute of 14 April 2015, I have received submissions from the parties to this discontinued proceeding regarding an application on behalf of Chris
Lee and Partners Limited (CLPL) to access the pleadings.

CROWN ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED v NATTRASS & ORS [2015] NZHC 1435 [24 June 2015]

[2] As a prospective litigant, CLPL seeks access to this material for the following reasons:

(a) Preference shareholders in FCS Loans Limited (in receivership and in liquidation), formerly South Canterbury Finance Limited (SCFL), represented by CLPL are considering the commencement of proceedings, including against former directors of SCFL.

(b)Access to the pleadings is said to be necessary in order for the preference shareholders to:

(i)identify the allegations made by the plaintiff against directors of SCFL (and the directors’ responses to such allegations); and

(ii) assist in the drafting of pleadings against the former directors.

(c) The preference shareholders have an interest in the proceedings brought by the plaintiff against former directors of SCFL.

The parties’ positions

[3] The plaintiff in the discontinued proceeding, Crown Asset Management Limited, has requested the Court to consider its view on the search application. It will abide the decision of the Court on the understanding the only documents that will be made available to the applicant will be the pleadings requested. Counsel for the plaintiff also makes the following relevant observations in an endeavour to assist the Court:

(a) The proceeding was discontinued. The allegations and responses in the pleadings remain untested, and have not been verified in any way.1

(b)There is an interest in maintaining confidentiality of documents and information provided to the Court in relation to proceedings that have

1 Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GMBH v AFT Pharmaceuticals Ltd [2012] NZHC 1051, (2012) 21
PRNZ 130 at [16].

not reached trial, on the basis of the orderly and fair administration of justice, and the protection of confidentiality.

(c) Reference is made to remarks made by Associate Judge Matthews on an earlier application to access these documents (“the BusinessDesk application”), that there is already “a substantial amount of evidence and factual material” available in the public domain which may assist the applicant…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Crown Asset Management Limited v Nattrass and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2015] NZHC 1435
Decision Date: 24 June 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Crown Asset Management Limited v Nattrass involved an application by ChrisLee and Partners Limited (CLPL) to access the pleadings of a discontinued proceeding. The plaintiff, Crown Asset Management Limited, sought to maintain confidentiality and opposed the application. The defendants, along with the third party, also opposed the application. The key legal issues were whether the applicant had a recognisable and legitimate purpose for seeking access and whether the mandatory considerations under Rule 3.16 of the High Court Rules favoured granting access. The Court found that CLPL's request for access was not illegitimate but required a balancing exercise of the mandatory considerations. The Court concluded that access to the pleadings should be granted subject to specific conditions to protect the defendants' privacy and confidentiality interests.

The Court considered the nature of the application and the reasons for seeking access, noting that while the proceeding was discontinued, the allegations remained untested. The Court weighed the factors under Rule 3.16, including the orderly and fair administration of justice, protection of confidentiality, privacy interests, and privilege, the principle of open justice, and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. The Court acknowledged that the information in the pleadings was limited to personal details of the directors, which were likely already in the public domain. The Court found that granting access would not significantly prejudice the administration of justice and that privacy considerations could be addressed through conditions. Accordingly, the Court granted access to the pleadings subject to conditions to ensure the information was used solely for drafting pleadings and to protect the defendants' privacy interests.

Orders