Dotcom v Attorney-General

Case [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


Details
AGLC
Dotcom v Attorney-General [2019] NZCA 509
Case
[2019] NZCA 509
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Kim Dotcom versus the Attorney-General, the Court of Appeal of New Zealand addressed a dispute involving the interpretation and application of the Privacy Act 1993. The applicant, Kim Dotcom, sought special leave to appeal a decision made by the High Court regarding the transfer of a request for personal information under the Privacy Act to another agency. The central issue was whether a request for urgency, as per section 37 of the Act, should be considered a relevant factor by an agency when deciding whether to refuse a request for personal information under section 29(1)(j) of the Act.

The legal issues before the Court of Appeal were two-fold. Firstly, whether a request for personal information could be transferred to another agency when the basis for the urgency request was not something the recipient could sensibly assess but was within the expertise of the agency to which the request was transferred. Secondly, whether a request for urgency under section 37 of the Privacy Act should be regarded as a relevant factor for an agency when deciding whether to refuse a request for personal information under section 29(1)(j). The Court had to determine if these considerations aligned with the legislative intent and statutory framework of the Privacy Act.

In delivering the judgment, the Court of Appeal granted the application for special leave to appeal on the specified question of law, reformulating it as whether a request for urgency is a relevant factor in the agency's decision-making process under the Privacy Act. The Court found that this question was significant enough to warrant further judicial consideration. The Court of Appeal recognised the importance of ensuring that agencies appropriately assess the relevance of urgency requests in the context of personal information requests. The decision underscored the need for a coherent approach to interpreting and applying the Privacy Act, particularly in complex cases involving multiple agencies and differing areas of expertise.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.