Korea Deposit Insurance Corporation v Huh

[2020] NZHC 2589

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2014-404-003372

[2020] NZHC 2589

BETWEEN

KOREA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION, TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY FOR JEIL SAVINGS BANK, JINHEUNG SAVINGS BANK and YOUNGNAM SAVINGS BANK
Plaintiffs

AND

JAE HO HUH

Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

G J Thwaite for the Plaintiffs

T B Fitzgerald for the Defendant
S McNulty for Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp (requesting access to Court documents)

Judgment:

2 October 2020

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

[Request for Access to Court Documents]

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 October 2020 at 12pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

G J Thwaite, Auckland

Kenton Chambers Lawyers, Auckland Bell Gully, Auckland

Jackson Russell Solicitors, Auckland

KOREA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION v HUH [2020] NZHC 2589 [2 October 2020]

Introduction

[1]    A non-party, Yoonwoo C & C Development Corp (Yoonwoo), has requested access to the Court file in this proceeding. The request was made by memorandum dated 9 September 2020, filed in a proceeding brought by Yoonwoo against a Mr Huh, who is also the defendant in this proceeding.

[2]    Yoonwoo’s request is made under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules). As required by r 11(3), the Registrar gave a copy of the request to the parties to this proceeding. Counsel for the defendant has filed a comprehensive memorandum opposing the request, except to the extent that Yoonwoo has a right to access the formal court record under r 8. Counsel for the plaintiff has filed a very brief memorandum opposing the request to the same extent.

[3]    The request and the memoranda were referred to me earlier this week, as Duty Judge.

[4]    Yoonwoo requests access to “the Court file” in this proceeding (including any enforcement or examination proceeding). Yoonwoo makes the request pursuant to the Rules, but does not identify the particular rules on which it relies.

[5]    I refuse the request. In summary, this is because the Rules require a person requesting access to ask for particular documents. Instead, Yoonwoo has requested access to the “the Court file”. The Rules do not permit a request in such broadly expressed terms.

[6]    The starting point, in relation to a civil proceeding, is the general right of access of the public under r 8(1). This grants every person the right to access the “formal court record” relating to a civil proceeding. The formal court record is defined in r 4. It includes “a register or an index” (as well as, among other things, judgments, orders, and minutes). The “register or … index” is a reference to the “Register of documents filed” that the Court keeps for each civil proceeding.1

1      Fuji Xerox New Zealand Limited v Whittaker [2018] NZHC 1043 at [11].

[7]    By r 10(1), a person exercises the general right of access under r 8 by asking the Registrar “for access to 1 or more documents”. It is clear from this rule that a person requesting access has to identify the documents requested.

[8]    Rule 8(1) does not confer a right on a person to access “the Court file”, as sought by Yoonwoo.2 Yoonwoo may, under r 8(1), access the formal court record. It still has that right. But to exercise that right, it should ask the Registrar under r 10(1) for particular documents. If Yoonwoo does not already know the details of the documents that it seeks, it can obtain those details by first accessing the “Register of documents filed”. It can then identify any other documents to which it has a general right of access under r 8(1), and request access to them under r 10(1).

[9]    If someone wishes to access a document to which they do not have a general right of access under r 8, they may request access under r 11. The request must be in writing and must set out “sufficient particulars of the document to enable the Registrar to identify it” (r 11(2)(b)). Yoonwoo’s request does not do this. It is a blanket request for access to “the Court file”. Rule 11 does not permit such a broadly expressed request.

[10]   Although I refuse the request, Yoonwoo remains free to exercise its general right of access to the formal court record (which does not require a written request) and to make a new (but compliant) request under r 11.

[11]   Finally, I record that Yoonwoo suggested that its request be put before Associate Judge Bell, who Yoonwoo said is familiar with both this proceeding and the proceeding in which Yoonwoo is the plaintiff. I did not do that. To the extent that the request depended on r 11, an Associate Judge does not have jurisdiction: r 11 (7).

Campbell J

2      Compare r 8(2), which does allow access to the “Court file” in administration matters.