Dotcom v Attorney-General

[2019] NZCA 509

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 CA195/2019
 [2019] NZCA 509

BETWEEN	KIM DOTCOM Applicant
AND	ATTORNEY-GENERAL Respondent

Hearing:	21 October 2019
Court:	Cooper and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	S L Cogan for Applicant V E Casey QC and A P Lawson for Respondent
Judgment:	23 October 2019 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for special leave to appeal is granted in respect of the following question of law:

Is a request for urgency under s 37 of the Privacy Act 1993 a relevant factor for an agency in determining whether to refuse a request for personal information under s 29(1)(j) of that Act?

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

1. Mr Dotcom has been granted leave to appeal by the High Court in respect of one question of law arising out of the decision of the High Court in Attorney General v Dotcom:[1] 

   Can a request for personal information under the Privacy Act 1993 be transferred by the recipient to another agency where the request seeks urgency and the basis for the urgency request is not a matter that the recipient is able to sensibly assess but the agency to which the request is transferred is the only agency able to properly evaluate the claimed basis for the urgency request? 

   [1]Attorney General v Dotcom [2018] NZHC 2564. Leave was granted in Dotcom v Attorney General [2019] NZHC 740.

2. The High Court declined leave to appeal on a number of other questions.

3. Mr Dotcom seeks special leave to appeal to this Court in respect of one additional question.  We are satisfied that special leave ought to be granted in respect of the following question, which has been reformulated in discussion with counsel at the hearing of the application:

   Is a request for urgency under s 37 of the Privacy Act 1993 a relevant factor for an agency in determining whether to refuse a request for personal information under s 29(1)(j) of that Act?

4. Mr Dotcom’s appeal to this Court will therefore proceed on the basis of the two questions set out above.

Solicitors:
Anderson Creagh Lai, Auckland for Applicant
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Respondent