Napier City Council v Stuff

[2019] NZHC 2216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2019-485-526

[2019] NZHC 2216

UNDER

the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL

Plaintiff

AND

STUFF LIMITED

First Defendant

MARTY SHARPE

Second Defendant

On the papers:
Counsel:	J McBride and C Smith for Plaintiff R K P Stewart for Defendants
Judgment:	5 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF CHURCHMAN J

[1]                 This decision is a sequel to the minute I issued yesterday morning in this matter following a teleconference with counsel for the plaintiff with Mr Stewart for the defendants participating on a Pickwick basis. The plaintiff has now filed at Court a sworn copy of the affidavit of Adele Henderson in support of the application along with a signed undertaking as to damages on behalf of the plaintiff.

[2]                 Counsel for the defendants has now filed an undertaking and a further memorandum. Unfortunately, the undertaking is not in the form sought by the applicant. The Court is therefore obliged to consider whether the application for an interim injunction should be granted.

NAPIER CITY COUNCIL v STUFF LIMITED & ANOR [2019] NZHC 2216 [5 September 2019]

The law

[3]                 For legal principles in relation to interlocutory injunctions are clear.1 The plaintiff must establish that there is a serious question to be tried in the proceeding and that the balance of convenience favours the grant of an injunction.

[4]                 Where an injunction is applied for on a without notice basis, the Court must be satisfied that proceeding on notice would cause undue delay or prejudice.2

[5]                 The law is also clear as to the consequences of an inadvertent publication of confidential information.3

[6]                 Here the plaintiff would seem to have a strongly arguable case that the information that is the subject of the interlocutory injunction application is confidential and the publication ought to be restrained. The balance of convenience favours preservation of the status quo until the Court gets to consider the matter properly.

[7]                 The potential for harm as a result of publication of the information is obvious. Accordingly, I make an interim order in the following terms:

(a)until further order of the Court, the defendants are restrained from disclosing or publishing or causing or permitting to be disclosed or published to any person the Confidential and Privileged Information (as defined in the statement of claim) other than to their legal advisors;

(b)until further order of the Court, all details on the Court file of the Confidential and Privileged Information (as defined in the statement of claim) to be suppressed;

1      See American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Limited [1975] AC 396 and Consolidated Traders Limited v Downes [1981] NZLR 247.

2      High Court Rule 7.23(2)(a)(i).

3      See in particular the Court of Appeal decision in Blum v ANZ New Zealand Limited [2015] NZCA 335.

(c)the defendants have leave to apply to set aside this interlocutory injunction on 24-hour notice;

(d)the matter is to be listed for mention in the first Duty Judge List in the week commencing 9 September 2019; and

(e)costs are reserved.

Churchman J

Solicitors:
Rice Spier, Auckland for Applicant

Counsel:

J McBride, Richmond Chambers, Auckland for Applicant R Stewart, Shortland Chambers, Auckland for Defendants