Ingenious Asset Management Limited v McConnon - [2025] NZSC 141

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 57/2025
[2025] NZSC 141

BETWEEN	INGENIOUS ASSET MANAGEMENT LIMITED Applicant
AND	SIMON MCCONNON First Respondent JOHN BAIRD MCCONNON Second Respondent KEVIN BRUCE RAMSEY Third Respondent STEPHEN MARK LAWRENCE Fourth Respondent CHRISTOPHER CAREY MCCULLAGH Fifth Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	G Jindal for Applicant M J Wallace and K L Maclean for First and Second Respondents K P McDonald for Third Respondent R M Stewart and A J Wakeman for the Fourth and Fifth Respondents
Judgment:	16 October 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B There is no order as to costs.
____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

In the context of proceedings brought against the present respondents in the High Court, the applicant sought access to recordings of hearings and conferences under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. The High Court declined to grant access. The applicant then sought to file notices of appeal in the Court of Appeal against two of the decisions declining access.[1]
[1]Ingenious Asset Management Ltd v McConnon [2024] NZHC 3137 (Van Bohemen J); and Ingenious Asset Management Ltd v McConnon HC Auckland CIV-2023-404-2103, 21 October 2024 (Muir J).
A Deputy Registrar of the Court of Appeal refused to accept the notices of appeal for filing. That was because the Deputy Registrar determined the appeals were against interlocutory decisions. That meant the appeal pathway was for the applicant to have sought and obtained leave to appeal from the High Court.[2] The applicant had not followed that pathway, so there was no jurisdiction for the appeals.
[2]Senior Courts Act 2016, s 56(3).
The applicant sought reviews of the Deputy Registrar’s decisions. Mallon J declined the applications for review.[3] The applicant seeks leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Mallon J. The applicant also seeks clarification as to the identification of the correct parties, submitting that the rights of the five respondents were not engaged when the Deputy Registrar refused to accept the documents for filing or when Mallon J declined the applications for review. The first, second, fourth and fifth respondents oppose any change to the parties, but all respondents abide the Court’s decision as to leave.

Background

[3]Ingenious Asset Management Ltd v McConnon [2025] NZCA 143 [CA judgment].

The decisions on applications for access to recordings which gave rise to the notices of appeal in the Court of Appeal are described by Mallon J as follows:[4]
[4] In the High Court proceeding, Associate Judge Brittain gave a costs judgment against the applicant following an unsuccessful opposition to a decision ordering the applicant to pay security for costs in the proceeding and related applications. The applicant wished to appeal the costs judgment. For that purpose, it requested the recordings of the hearing on the application for security for costs as well as of callover and case management conferences in the proceeding. The request was declined…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ingenious Asset Management Limited v McConnon and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZSC 141
Decision Date: 16 October 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for leave to appeal brought by Ingenious Asset Management Limited against several respondents. The applicant sought access to recordings of hearings and conferences under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. The High Court had previously declined the applicant's request for access to these recordings. The applicant attempted to appeal these decisions in the Court of Appeal but was unsuccessful due to procedural errors. The applicant then sought a review of these decisions, which was also dismissed by Mallon J. Now, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court and clarification on the correct parties involved.

The legal issues before the court were whether the application for leave to appeal should be granted and if the respondents were correctly identified in the proceedings. The central issue was whether the requests for access to court records constituted "interlocutory applications" under the Senior Courts Act 2016, which would require leave to appeal from the High Court before proceeding to the Court of Appeal.

The Supreme Court held that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed. The Court found that the requests for access to recordings were indeed "interlocutory applications" as they related to matters of procedure or relief ancillary to the claims made in the pleadings. The Court emphasized that the purpose of requiring leave to appeal for interlocutory applications was to prevent unnecessary delays in substantive proceedings. The Court also noted that the applicant's proposed appeal would largely revisit arguments already addressed by the Court of Appeal, and there was little merit in the underlying applications for access. Furthermore, the respondents were correctly identified as they were parties to the litigation, and the decisions in question would impact the resolution of the case.

The Court's decision was that the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs. The Supreme Court declined to alter the parties involved, finding that the respondents were appropriately named as they were affected by the decisions in question.

Orders