Hawke's Bay Regional Council v Herbert Construction Company Limited

The High Court of New Zealand considered an application for access to a court file by a journalist from Fairfax Media in the case of Hawke's Bay Regional Council v Herbert Construction Company Limited. The case involved a building claim, which had been settled before any substantive hearing took place. The plaintiff, Hawke’s Bay Regional Council, had originally sued the first defendant, Herbert Construction Company Limited, and subsequently amended its claim to include several third parties. The first defendant went into liquidation, leading to the discontinuance of all its third-party claims. However, the plaintiff's revised claim against some of the third parties remained until the proceedings were ultimately discontinued on 13 April 2015. The application for access was made under High Court Rules 3.11, 3.13, and 3.13, which govern the disclosure of documents in cases where the substantive hearing has not commenced.

The court was required to determine whether the file should be searched or if the parties should be further identified beyond what is already in the public domain. The opposing submissions highlighted the early stage of the proceedings at the time of settlement, the potential for unjustified reputational damage, and the confidentiality of the settlement itself. The court considered the six mandatory factors under Rule 3.16, including the public interest in access to court documents and the need to protect defendants from the harm that could result from the disclosure of untested allegations. The court also noted that the subject matter of the dispute did not particularly engage the plaintiff's public administration role and that the plaintiff was subject to other information access rules.

The court declined the application for access to the court file, placing emphasis on the orderly administration of justice and the encouragement of early resolution of claims. The court acknowledged the public nature of the plaintiff and the potential increased public interest but concluded that the circumstances did not justify heightened access. The court found no specific reason for needing to search the file and balanced all factors to decline the application to search or further identify the parties.