Department of Internal Affairs v Christchurch Casinos Limited

[2025] NZHC 2208

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-685

[2025] NZHC 2208

BETWEEN

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

Plaintiff

AND

CHRISTCHURCH CASINOS LIMITED

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	S McMullan and M Djurich for the Plaintiff J Appleyard and G Carter for the Defendant
Judgment:	7 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF HARLAND J

As to non-publication and disclosure orders

[1]                 The parties to this proceeding have reached an agreement in relation to liability. Prior to the penalty hearing, they have however, by consent, sought certain non- publication and disclosure orders. The non-disclosure orders are in relation to:

(a)        the transaction thresholds referred to in the amended statement of claim, above which the defendant's transaction monitoring system creates alerts;

(b)       names of any of the defendant's customers referred to in the amended statement of claim; and

(c)        references in the amended statement of claim to the defendant having made a suspicious activity report or a prescribed transaction report (or to information which is reasonably likely to disclose the existence of such reports) in respect of any specific activity.

DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS v CHRISTCHURCH CASINOS LTD [2025] NZHC 2208 [7 August 2025]

[2]                 The disclosure orders are required under ss 47(1) and 48C of the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act 2009 (the Act) so that the plaintiff can disclose information to the Court relating to the defendant's admitted breaches under the first and fourth causes of action.

[3]                 The parties rely on Department of Internal Affairs v SkyCity Casino Management Ltd where similar orders were sought and granted.1

Non-publication orders

[4]                 I am satisfied, based on the information contained in counsels' joint memorandum, that non-publication orders in relation to the following paragraphs in the amended statement of claim are justified. There will therefore be non-publication orders in respect of:

(a)        paras 37, 39 and 48 of the amended statement of claim, on the grounds that the information contained in those paragraphs contains commercially sensitive information;

(b) paras 97(b), 98, 99(a) to (c), 101, 102, 105(a) to (c), 107(a) and 129 to 369 of the amended statement of claim, on the grounds that the information contained in these paragraphs contain personal customer information in respect of which there is a legitimate expectation of confidentiality;

(c)   paras  33(b), 68(a) to  (j),  76,  83(c)(iii),  134(d),  142(c), 154(c), 164(c),

174(d), 182(c), 191(b), 204(b), particular (b) to para 227, 214(b), 222(c), 230(c), 243(c), 251(b), 255 and its particulars, particular (d) to para 257, particular (b) to para 268, 272(d), 283(c), 290 and its particulars, 295(c), 301 and its particulars, 307(d), 318(c), particular (b) to paragraph 325, 328(d), particular (b) to para 336, 340(d), 346 and its particulars, and 362(c). I am satisfied that this information is information in respect of which there exist strict disclosure provisions under ss 46-47 and 48C of the Act, being the references to the defendant having made a suspicious

1      Department of Internal Affairs v SkyCity Casino Management Ltd [2024] NZHC 2780.

activity report or a prescribed transaction report, or to information which is reasonably likely to disclose the existence of such reports.

Disclosure orders

[5]                 I make the disclosure order sought on the grounds that the information relating to the defendant's prescribed transaction and suspicious activity reporting is relevant to the Court understanding the consequences of two of the defendant's admitted breaches under the Act (being the first and fourth causes of action) which relate to establishing, implementing and maintaining a compliant AML/CFT programme, and account monitoring.

[6]                 I am satisfied that disclosure of this information is necessary in the interests of justice.

Harland J

Solicitors:

Meredith Connell, Auckland Chapman Tripp, Christchurch.