Gosney v Ngai Tahu Property Limited

[2021] NZHC 2961

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2015-409-10

[2021] NZHC 2961

BETWEEN

BRIAN ARTHUR GOSNEY and AUDREY LAURA EDWARDS

Appellants

AND

NGAI TAHU PROPERTY LIMITED

Respondent

Appearances:	B Han (applicant for access)
Ruling:	3 November 2021
(Determined on the papers)

RULING OF OSBORNE J

[Application for permission to access Court documents]

[1]                 Ben Han of the law firm, Essence Law, has applied for permission to access all documents on the Court file in this matter and “arguments”.

[2]                 The Deputy Registrar promptly provided a copy of the request to the parties pursuant to r 11(3) Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (“the Rules”). No objection or other response was received from either party within the three working days referred to in r 11(5).

[3]                 As Mr Han does not have a right under the Rules to access the requested documents, he makes this application under r 11.

[4]                 In his application, Mr Han stated that he wanted to look at the requested documents for case analysis and study purposes. Upon the Deputy Registrar’s request for further explanation, Mr Han recorded:

GOSNEY and EDWARDS v NGAI TAHU PROPERTY LTD [2021] NZHC 2961 [3 November 2021]

I’d like to see how this case was submitted and eventually argued and how these submissions and arguments were treated by a judge.

A judgment typically only has a summary of facts and the decision itself. It doesn’t have submissions and arguments. This does not give much of a flavour as to how the case unfolded, developed and argued.

I was hoping to get a more complete picture of the case as if I was personally involved in the submissions and present in the trial.

[5]                 I note that in terms of the key documents to which Mr Han seeks access the file contains in the usual way the parties’ counsels’ written submissions but does not contain any record of oral argument (which would not normally be typed up).

[6]                 The concept of a practising lawyer (or another such as an academic) wishing to understand how argument developed on an appeal and had its impact on the Court’s judgment is understandable. In this case, that argument was presented in open court and resulted in a judgment which is not the subject of any suppression order.

[7]                 In terms of r 13(c) the substantive hearing having been completed, the principle of open justice has greater weight in relation to such documents as the written submissions. While the parties themselves are entitled to have any confidentiality and privacy interests carefully considered, they have raised none in relation to the present case and the documents on file do not on their face indicate that confidentiality or privacy considerations arise.

[8]                 I am satisfied that it is appropriate to grant Mr Han’s request but with specific requirements as to the use to which the access documents may be put, having regard to Mr Han’s stated purpose.

Ruling

[9]                 I grant permission to Ben Han to access the documents on the Court file relating to this proceeding with conditions that:

(a)the accessed documents are to be used specifically for the case analysis and study purposes referred to in Mr Han’s application to the Court; and

(b)the accessed documents are not to be used for any other purpose without first obtaining the Court’s written approval to that use.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

A Riches, Saunders & Co

A Armstrong, Young Hunter Copy to: B Han, Auckland