MB Technology Limited v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd - [2022] NZHC 1264

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

COMMERCIAL PANEL

CIV-2020-404-1541

[2022] NZHC 1264

BETWEEN
MB TECHNOLOGY LTD

Plaintiff

AND

ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD

First defendant

DAVID SHU-HAN YU
Second defendant

Continued overleaf

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

J S Cooper QC, S A Barker, and L C Sizer for plaintiff

M Heard and J L Beverwijk for first, fifth and sixth defendants AJB Holmes for second and third defendants
C P Browne and CJL Martin for fourth defendant

Date of judgment:

1 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

[Access to Court documents]

This judgment was delivered by me on 1 June 2022 at 11.30am, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
J S Cooper QC, Auckland
AJB Holmes, Barrister, Auckland
Buddle Findlay, Wellington / Auckland Lee Salmon Long, Auckland
Koo Telle, Auckland Wilson Harle, Auckland

Copy to:
BusinessDesk, Auckland

MB TECHNOLOGY LTD v ORBIS BLOCKCHAIN TECHNOLOGIES LTD [2022] NZHC 1264 [1 June 2022]

DANIEL JOHN CROTHERS
Third defendant

ECOMI TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD
Fourth defendant

DENISE MULLINGS
Fifth defendant

JAHANZAIB KHAN
Sixth defendant

[1] For BusinessDesk, Victoria Young seeks access to the defendants’ applications for strike out and summary judgment, “defences” (presumably meaning any opposition), and counsel’s submissions filed for hearing before me on 23–24 May 2022, and otherwise “documents relating to” the hearing and “[a]ll minutes judgments and directions on the file”.

[2] Ms Young wishes to look at the documents “for news reporting”, observing there to be “[p]ublic interest in this company which has courted public attention in the past” (annexing her earlier reporting of a related proceeding) and (citing Electrix v Fletcher [2019] NZHC 2678 at [11] ) “[t]he case has reached open court therefore [there] must be a presumption of [openness]”. She adds:

If your honour is concerned he could impose the condition that contents of the submissions are not to be publicised until after they have been given in open court, and any publication is to reflect any qualifications or amendments to the submissions ultimately delivered. See Ink Patch Money v RBNZ [2022] NZHC 840 at [19].

[3] MB Technology abides my decision on Ms Young’s applications. While acknowledging Ms Young prima facie is entitled to access the formal court record, the defendants generally are opposed to her wholesale access to the documents she seeks on grounds of privilege, confidentiality and commercial sensitivity, noting — as interlocutory applications — the Rules anticipate a different balance than the open justice considerations favoured by Ms Young. They seek redactions to two minutes and otherwise seek “a reasonable opportunity to review all of the materials filed and propose exclusions and redactions”. Contemporaneously, the defendants seek “staged”

release of my pending judgment “to allow the parties to propose by way of memorandum [any] confidentiality protections”.

[4] Ms Young replies any balancing favours her interests to have access to what she “would have … seen and heard” if present at the hearing: “open justice requires…

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 MB Technology Limited v Orbis Blockchain Technologies Ltd 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: [2022] NZHC 1264
Decision Date: 1 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, MB Technology Limited sought access to certain documents related to a case involving multiple defendants. The primary dispute was whether the plaintiff, MB Technology, was entitled to access specific documents filed by the defendants in relation to the case. The defendants argued against the disclosure of these documents on grounds of privilege, confidentiality, and commercial sensitivity. The court had to decide whether MB Technology was entitled to access these documents under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

The legal issues centred on the interpretation and application of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, specifically whether MB Technology had the right to access the documents in question and whether any restrictions should be imposed on the access due to confidentiality and commercial sensitivity concerns. The court had to balance the principles of open justice and the protection of confidential and commercially sensitive information.

The court held that MB Technology was entitled to access the register of documents filed in the proceeding and the interlocutory judgment, but not the other documents sought. The court found that while open justice was a significant principle, it could be balanced against other considerations such as the protection of confidential and commercially sensitive information. The court also noted that the defendants' claims for redaction were retrospective and therefore not favoured. The court concluded that MB Technology's access to the documents should be limited to what was necessary to satisfy the principle of open justice.

The court's final orders were that MB Technology was granted access to the register of documents filed in the proceeding and the interlocutory judgment, which was embargoed from publication until 12 noon on Thursday, 2 June 2022. The defendants' applications for redaction were denied, and they were not granted access to the other documents sought.

Orders