Moss v Love

[2018] NZHC 1968

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2018-485-275

[2018] NZHC 1968

IN THE MATTER

of the Insolvency Act 2006

AND

IN THE MATTER

of the bankruptcy of Ralph Heberley Ngātata Love

BETWEEN

BISSON MOSS

Judgment creditor

AND

RALPH HEBERLEY NGĀTATA LOVE

Judgment debtor

Hearing:	On the papers
Counsel:	N T Gray for Judgment creditor F J Handy for Judgment debtor
Judgment:	2 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF CLARK J

[1]                 Business and economics correspondent, Hamish Rutherford, seeks access to the court file in a creditor’s application to declare Sir Ralph Ngātata Love bankrupt.1 At present, the documents on the file consist of a certification of judgment against Sir Ngātata,2 a bankruptcy notice, affidavits of service in relation to the bankruptcy notice and the creditor’s application to have Sir Ngātata declared bankrupt.

1      Bisson Moss v Love HC Wellington CIV-2018-485-275.

2      Bisson Moss v Love DC Wellington CIV-2017-85-855, 12 April 2018.

MOSS v LOVE [2018] NZHC 1968 [2 August 2018]

[2]                 The judgment creditor, Bisson Moss, and the judgment debtor, Sir Ngātata, have filed a joint memorandum in opposition to Mr Rutherford’s application. The first call of the creditor’s application to bankrupt Sir Ngātata was adjourned to the next list date after 17 August 2018 to enable the parties to finalise a settlement by allowing Sir Ngātata time to raise funds to meet the proposed agreement. The parties are concerned that any reporting might be detrimental to the judgment debtor’s dealings with a financier to raise funds for settlement.

[3]                 An application for access to court documents is made  pursuant  to  the  Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. The creditor’s application falls within the definition of “document” in relation to a civil proceeding.3 As such, the application falls to be determined pursuant to r 12, which sets out factors to be considered in determining requests for access to documents. The relevant factors for the purpose of this application are:

(a)the orderly and fair administration of justice:

(b)the right to bring and defend civil proceedings without the disclosure of any more information about the private lives of individuals, or matters that are commercially sensitive, than is necessary to satisfy the principle of open justice:

(c)the principle of open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting of, and comment on, court hearings and decisions):

(d)the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information:

(e)any other matter that the Judge thinks appropriate.

[4]    I also note that, in applying r 12, the Judge must have regard to the fact that before the substantive hearing protection of confidentiality and privacy interests and

3      Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, s 4 definition of “document”.

the orderly and fair administration of justice may require that access to documents be limited.4

[5]                 I consider it is appropriate to decline the application at this stage. Confidentiality and privacy interests are greater before trial. The parties are attempting to settle and the Court has an interest in promoting settlement of litigation. Moreover, the first call is set down for 28 August 2018. After that date the likelihood of settlement will be known and the case for access may be assessed differently.

[6]                 Mr Rutherford is entitled to make another application for access after the first call of the proceeding on 28 August 2018.

Karen Clark J

Solicitors:

Sainsbury Logan & Williams, Napier for Plaintiff Francis J Handy, Wellington for Respondent

4      Rule 13(a).