Legal Research
Cases
Dotcom v Crown Law Office

Dotcom v Crown Law Office

Case [2023] NZHC 1122 11 May 2023

Privacy Act 1993

Information Privacy Requests

Transfer of Requests

Refusal of Requests

Damages for Loss of Benefit

Damages for Loss of Dignity and Injury to Feelings

Interference with Privacy

Privacy Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2022-485-000141

[2023] NZHC 1122

UNDER the Privacy Act 1993

IN THE MATTER OF

an appeal under section 123 of the Human Rights Act

BETWEEN

KIM DOTCOM

Appellant

AND

CROWN LAW OFFICE

First Respondent

Continued over page

Hearing: 2 March 2023

Appearances:

S L Cogan for appellant

V E Casey KC and A P Lawson for respondents

Judgment:

11 May 2023

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J AND MEMBERS SUSAN ISAACS AND NICOLA SWAIN

This judgment was delivered by me on 11 May 2023 at 3:00 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………………………..

Counsel/Solicitors:
R M Mansfield KC, Auckland S L Cogan, Auckland
V E Casey KC, Wellington Mackenzie Elvin, Tauranga Crown Law Office, Wellington

DOTCOM v CROWN LAW OFFICE [2023] NZHC 1122 [11 May 2023]

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Second Respondent

DEPARTMENT OF PRIME MINISTER AND CABINET

Third Respondent

IMMIGRATION NEW ZEALAND

Fourth Respondent

MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT

Fifth Respondent

MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND TRADE

Sixth Respondent

MINISTRY OF JUSTICE

Seventh Respondent

NEW ZEALAND POLICE

Eighth Respondent

Table of Contents

Background to appeal [4]

United States extradition requests [5]

Information privacy requests [10]

Solicitor-General responses [12]

Extradition hearing commences [17]

Complaint to Privacy Commissioner [18]
District Court finds Mr Dotcom and associates eligible for surrender [19]

Privacy Commissioner’s final views on Dotcom complaint [21]

Complaint to Tribunal [22]

High Court dismisses challenges to DC Extradition Judgment, but grants leave to appeal on limited grounds  [23]
Tribunal upholds Privacy Complaint  [25]
Government agencies start to respond to information privacy requests  [30]
Court of Appeal dismisses challenges to HC Extradition Judgment  [32]
High Court upholds appeal against HRRT Complaint Judgment  [35]
Leave to appeal granted on two questions of law  [37] Supreme Court decision on appeals against CA Extradition Judgment  [39] Court of Appeal allows Mr Dotcom’s appeal against HC Privacy Judgment  [40] Court of Appeal dismisses judicial review appeals  [41]

Tribunal declines to award damages to Mr Dotcom [44]

HRRT Damages Judgment [45]

Mr Dotcom’s appeal [54]

Submissions by counsel for Mr Dotcom 19

Submissions by counsel for the Attorney-General 22

Nature of appeal 24

Questions for determination 24

Relevant provisions of Privacy Act 25

Was the Tribunal required to restrict its consideration to damages arising from harm
caused by the transfer of the information privacy requests?  29
Privacy Complaint  30
HRRT Complaint Judgment  30
HC Privacy Judgment  31
Questions of law for the Court of Appeal  33
CA Privacy Judgment  33
Consequences of CA Privacy Judgment  35
Was the Tribunal bound by the High Court’s finding that there was a proper basis to
refuse the information privacy requests because they were vexatious?  37
Was the Tribunal correct in holding that no damages for loss of benefit should be awarded?   38
The SC Disclosure Judgment  40
Other challenges by Mr Dotcom  43
Was the Tribunal correct in holding that no damages for injury to feelings and loss of dignity should…

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

Details

AGLC: Dotcom v Crown Law Office [2023] NZHC 1122
Case: [2023] NZHC 1122
Decision Date: 11 May 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kim Dotcom appeals against the decision of the Human Rights Review Tribunal (the Tribunal) declining to award him damages for the wrongful transfer and refusal of requests by Government agencies for all personal information about him that was held by those agencies. The Tribunal held that, while there had been an interference with Mr Dotcom's privacy by the transfer and refusal of the information requests, it was not open to it to award damages because there was no evidence of loss of benefit, loss of dignity or injury to feelings. Mr Dotcom submits that the Tribunal erred in excluding from consideration any loss of benefit that he might have been expected to obtain from the refusal of the requests and in limiting its consideration to such loss of benefit that he might have been expected to obtain from the transfer of the requests. The Court holds that any loss of benefit must be causally linked to the refusal of the requests and that Mr Dotcom must show that there was an objective basis for concluding that the requested information would have been relevant to the extradition proceedings and could have been put to some use in those proceedings. However, Mr Dotcom has not provided any evidence that there was an objective basis for concluding that the requested information would have been relevant to the extradition proceedings. The Court also considers that the Tribunal was not correct in holding that no damages for loss of dignity or injury to feelings should be awarded. The Court agrees with the Tribunal that Mr Dotcom has not established that he suffered any loss of dignity or injury to feelings simply because of the transfer and refusal of the information privacy requests. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Mr Dotcom's appeal and orders the costs of the appeal to be paid by Mr Dotcom.

Orders