Gatfield v Hinton - [2025] NZHC 2269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-2969

[2025] NZHC 2269

BETWEEN
GILLIAN JANE GATFIELD

First Plaintiff

AND

EMMA JACQUELINE PEARSON

Second Plaintiff

AND

ANNE ELIZABETH HINTON

Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

M A Jeffries for First and Second Plaintiff A S Butler KC for Defendant

A H Waalkens KC for Interested Parties

Judgment:

12 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 August 2025 at 11.30 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

GATFIELD v HINTON [2025] NZHC 2269 [12 August 2025]

The application

[1] This is an application for access to Court documents in this proceeding made by a journalist from Radio New Zealand (RNZ). The documents the applicant seeks are described in the application as follows:

(a)judge minutes relating to case management, including any that are relevant to the judicial status of the defendant;

(b)the application for alternative dispute resolution, the opposition to ADR, submissions by the parties on that application, and the transcript of the hearing of the ADR application;

(c)the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, the opposition to that application and all submissions on that application.

[2]The stated reason for the application is as follows:

The case involves a trustee who is also a senior judge. All case management decisions and litigation involving senior judges has strong public interest. There are a number of issues such as open justice where a court makes decisions involving one of its own senior judges, fair administration of justice, and freedom to seek and impart information ... The case is also important because it involves issues of human rights including rights to a public trial.

Documents are asked for from both applications (for ADR and for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal) because they both involve all those issues.

The information is not restricted under Rule 7 and I am not requesting private or confidential information which is in claims or affidavits.

[3] The application was originally referred to Johnstone J as the Auckland Duty Judge. However, by minute dated 30 July 2025, he decided to recuse himself from determining the application, given his association with the defendant as a colleague in the Auckland High Court. It has since been referred to me as the civil list judge in Christchurch.

[4] The documents all relate to steps taken before, during and after the hearing of an application under s 145 of the Trusts Act 2019 for orders directing the proceeding to go to mediation and, if required, to arbitration (I will refer to these two processes collectively as alternative dispute resolution or ADR).

The relevant background

[5] On 26 June 2024 Associate Judge Lester issued a decision on the defendant’s application to have the proceeding referred to alternative dispute resolution under s 145 of the Trusts Act (the ADR judgment).1 That section provides:
145 Power of court to…

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 Gatfield v Hinton

Details

AGLC: Gatfield v Hinton [2025] NZHC 2269
Case: [2025] NZHC 2269
Decision Date: 12 August 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application for access to court documents made by a journalist from Radio New Zealand. The documents sought include judge minutes, submissions on the application to refer the case to alternative dispute resolution (ADR), and documents relating to an application for leave to appeal the ADR judgment. The case revolves around a dispute involving a trustee who is also a senior judge, raising issues of open justice, fair administration of justice, and human rights. The application was initially referred to Johnstone J but was later referred to Dunningham J after Johnstone J recused himself due to his association with the defendant.

The legal issues in this case revolve around the balance between open justice and the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests, particularly when a senior judge is involved in the proceedings. The court had to determine whether the requested documents should be made accessible to the media, considering the principles set out in the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. The court considered the nature of the documents requested, the reasons for the request, and the potential impact of releasing the documents on the administration of justice and the privacy interests of the parties.

Dunningham J found that while the principle of open justice and the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information were relevant, particularly given the involvement of a senior judge, the confidentiality and privacy interests also had significant weight. The court granted access to the minutes and some of the submissions related to the ADR judgment, as these documents did not contain private or confidential information that was not already in the public domain. However, the court declined to grant access to the transcript of the hearing, as it would not assist in understanding the reasons for the ADR judgment and there was a risk of comments being taken out of context. Access to documents relating to the appeal was granted, subject to certain confidentiality conditions. The court imposed conditions to protect specific parts of the submissions that contained private or confidential information, in line with the principles set out in the Rules.

The final orders of the court granted access to the requested documents, except for the transcript of the hearing, subject to the confidentiality conditions outlined in the judgment. The court's decision aimed to balance the public interest in open justice with the need to protect the privacy and confidentiality of the parties involved.

Orders