Hunt v A

Case [2007] NZCA 332 6 August 2007

Type to search within this case.

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA114/06

[2007] NZCA 332

BETWEEN	ANNE HUNT
Appellant
AND	A
Respondent
Hearing:	15 May 2007
Court:	Glazebrook, Hammond	and Wilson JJ
Counsel:	S J Price for Appellant

H B Rennie QC and G L Turkington for Respondent

Judgment: 6 August 2007 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

BAll the orders made in the High Court are set aside. This order will lie in court for five days.
CThe costs orders in the High Court are set aside. In that Court Ms Hunt will have her disbursements, as fixed by the Registrar.
DIn this Court, Ms Hunt will have costs of $6,000 and usual disbursements.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Hammond J)

HUNT V A CA CA114/06 [6 August 2007]

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction  [1]
Background  [5]
The pleadings: what is now in issue?  [11]

Fresh evidence [19]
The book

The general themes of the work [24]
The provenance and writing of the book [30]

The appeal points [43]
Contempt

Introduction: the High Court judgment  [45]
The Court Search Rules  [46]
Chisholm J's Minute  [56]
Contempt by a breach of confidence  [57]
Breach of confidence
Introduction: what exactly are the civil claims which are being
advanced?  [58]
A primary obligation of confidence between Wand Ms Hunt               [64]
Did Ms Hunt breach confidence as a third party recipient
of confidential information?
(a)     Introduction  [67]
(b)     Third party breaches of confidence  [69]
(c)     Recipient liability in this case  [95]
Contempt   [103]

Conclusion [105]

Introduction

[1] This is an appeal against a decision of Wild J delivered on 17 May 2006 in HC WN CIV-2003-485-2553.

[2] The Judge held the appellant, Anne Hunt, to be in contempt of court and gave judgment against her for a breach of confidence in publishing a book, which we designate as "B". The Judge fined Ms Hunt $1,000 (to be paid to the Registrar of the High Court); awarded damages of $15,000 against her (in favour of the respondent, "A"); ordered the Registrar to seize and destroy any unsold copies of the book; and enjoined Ms Hunt from "future publication of those parts of her book" which had been found to be in contempt of court.

[3] Ms Hunt now appeals to this Court. The relief she seeks is that the judgment of Wild J "be set aside" and a judgment that "the appellant did not commit contempt

of court or breach of confidence" be substituted. There is no cross-appeal against the consequential relief ordered by the Judge, in the event that the substantive judgment of Wild J is upheld.

[4] We have designated the book as "B" because there is in force an interim order which suppressed the name of the book. We have not heard argument on whether that order should be modified or revoked. We will deal further with this issue in the conclusion of this judgment.

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 Hunt v A

Details

AGLC: Hunt v A [2007] NZCA 332
Case: [2007] NZCA 332
Decision Date: 6 August 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- **Parties, nature of dispute, and court:** The case involves an appeal by Anne Hunt against a decision of Wild J in the High Court. Hunt was found in contempt of court and liable for breach of confidence for publishing a book that allegedly disclosed confidential information. The Court of Appeal of New Zealand reviewed the decision.

- **Legal issues:** The Court of Appeal examined whether Hunt breached any suppression orders, the confidentiality of the settlement between the parties, and whether she committed contempt of court by breaching confidence.

- **Court's reasoning and outcome:** The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside all orders made by Wild J. The Court found that Hunt did not breach any suppression orders and was not in contempt of court. The Court also ruled that there was no breach of confidence as Hunt had the express consent of the complainant to publish the information. The Court concluded that Hunt's use of the confidential material was not unconscionable and that the publication was minimal and non-revelatory.

- **Final orders:** The Court set aside all orders made by Wild J, allowed the appeal, and awarded Hunt costs of $6,000 and usual disbursements. The Court noted that any ongoing issues regarding the suppression of the book's name should be addressed by an application to Wild J.

Orders