The applicant, Kim Dotcom, applies for special leave to appeal a decision of the High Court (High Court damages judgment)[1] dismissing his appeal against a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal).[2]
[2]Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2022] NZHRRT 7 [Tribunal damages decision].
The application arises out of 52 information requests Mr Dotcom made in 2015, pursuant to s 37 of the Privacy Act 1993 (the 1993 Act).[3] Most of the requests were transferred to the Attorney‑General’s office (Crown Law) by the various Ministers (and government agencies) to whom they were sent. The transfers were challenged by Mr Dotcom. After differing findings in the Tribunal[4] and the High Court,[5] this Court found that the transfers of the information requests breached Mr Dotcom’s privacy.[6] The question of damages was remitted to the Tribunal.[7]
[3]The Privacy Act 1993 was repealed by the Privacy Act 2020, s 216(1) from 1 December 2020.
[4]Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2018] NZHRRT 7 [Tribunal complaint decision].
The Tribunal subsequently declined to award damages to Mr Dotcom.[8] Mr Dotcom appealed to the High Court and it also declined to award him damages.[9]
[8]Tribunal damages decision, above n 2, at [48].
[9]High Court damages judgment, above n 1, at [175].
Mr Dotcom applied for leave to appeal to this Court. That application was declined by the High Court.[10]
The application is brought pursuant to s 124 of the Human Rights Act 1993.[11] It provides that a second appeal from a decision of the Tribunal can only be brought on questions of law with the leave of the High Court or, if the High Court declines leave, with special leave from this Court. We discuss…
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.
Continue reading Dotcom v Crown Law Office
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2024] NZCA 260
Case
[2024] NZCA 260
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This is an application for special leave to appeal against the High Court's decision to decline leave to appeal a decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) declining to award damages to the applicant, Kim Dotcom. The Court of Appeal declines the application. The applicant had made 52 information requests in 2015 under the Privacy Act 1993 (the 1993 Act) to various government agencies. Most of the requests were transferred to the Attorney-General's office (Crown Law) by the various Ministers and government agencies. The applicant challenged the transfers and the refusal to respond to the requests. The Court of Appeal found that the transfers of the information requests breached the applicant's privacy. The question of damages was remitted to the Tribunal. The Tribunal declined to award damages. The applicant appealed to the High Court, which also declined to award damages. The applicant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal was declined by the High Court. The application for special leave to appeal to this Court is brought pursuant to section 124 of the Human Rights Act 1993. The applicant seeks to argue two questions of law, namely: (a) Was it necessary for the applicant to show a loss of benefit over and above the unlawful withholding of information requested under Information Privacy Principle 6 by the respondents? (b) Was it necessary for the applicant to show that there was an objective basis for concluding that some of the information withheld by the respondents would have been relevant to, or able to have been put to some use in, the eligibility proceeding concerning the United States of America's request for the applicant's surrender under the Extradition Act 1999? This Court can only grant special leave to appeal if the question of law involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its general or public importance or for any other reason, ought to be submitted to this Court for decision. The Court considers that neither question is seriously arguable, or raises an issue of general or public importance warranting a second appeal. The Court declines the application for special leave to appeal. The applicant must pay costs for a standard application on a band A basis to the respondents jointly, together with usual disbursements.