Heazlewood v Joie de Vivre Canterbury Ltd

[2014] NZCA 587

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA499/2014
[2014] NZCA 587

BETWEEN	SUSAN MARIE HEAZLEWOOD Appellant
AND	JOIE DE VIVRE CANTERBURY LTD Respondent

Court:

Miller, Heath and Dobson JJ

Counsel:

A M Corry for Appellant
J E Bayley for Respondent

Judgment:

(On the papers)

2 December 2014 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

Request to anonymise and redact judgment declined.  The Registrar should now release it.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Miller J)

1. Counsel for the respondent has sought anonymisation of the judgment, redaction of certain material in it, and orders prohibiting search of the Court of Appeal file.  Counsel for Mrs Heazlewood agrees in part.

2. No grounds have been made out for anonymisation.  Mr Bayley suggests that it is commonplace to anonymise the parties in proceedings involving maintenance and relationship property.  He points out that the High Court has done it in this very case.  But s 11B of the Family Courts Act 1980, which applies to relationship property proceedings,[1] provides that any person may publish a report of proceedings except in certain circumstances none of which is said to apply in this case.

   [1]Property (Relationships) Act 1976, s 35A.

3. Nor are we prepared to have any details redacted from the judgment.  No justification has been advanced for removing the reference to Lane Neave and the caveat number.  The judgment should be released accordingly.

4. It is not necessary to direct that the court file not be searched without leave.  Rule 11(5) of the Court of Appeal (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2009, which corresponds to r 3.12(2) of the High Court Rules, provides that only with the Court’s permission may a person access a document that relates to a proceeding brought under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976, as this one was.  That extends to the case on appeal, which contains the allegedly sensitive information. 

Solicitors:
Godfreys Law, Christchurch for Appellant
Rhodes & Co, Christchurch for Respondent