Opai v Culpan - [2016] NZHC 3006

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-092-1026 [2016] NZHC 3006

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992 section 35

BETWEEN

MELISSA JEAN OPAI Plaintiff

AND

LAURIE CULPAN First Defendant

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

(sued on behalf of the COMMISSIONER OF POLICE)

Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Counsel:

N W Woods and P Amaranathan for Plaintiff
H Rennie QC for First Defendant
M McClelland for Second Defendant

Judgment:

13 December 2016

JUDGMENT (No.3) OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL [Application by media for access to court file]

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 December 2016 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………….
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Rice Craig (N W Woods/P Amaanathan), Papakura, for Plaintiff
Thomas Dewar Sziranyi Lettes ( D Gerard Dewar), Wellington, for First Defendant
Crown Law Office (A Todd), Wellington, for Second Defendant

Copy for:
Hugh Rennie QC, Wellington, for First Defendant
M McClelland QC, Wellington, for Second Defendant
New Zealand Police (N Ridder0, Wellington, for Commissioner of Police

Kelly Dennett, Fairfax Media, Auckland

OPAI v CULPAN [2016] NZHC 3006 [13 December 2016]

[1] Kelly Dennett of Fairfax Media has applied for access to documents in this proceeding. The particular documents are the “statement of claim, ruling in relation to application for costs and discovery”. The reasons given are:

The case involves a senior police officer and some aspects of this case have already been published on-line by the way of formal rulings of the court. Neither of the parties has sought name suppression. The documents will allow Fairfax to see if it should dedicate resources to follow up the case.

[2] The request was made on 31 October 2016. The parties made prompt submissions in response. I have deferred dealing with the request until delivery of my reserved decisions on the interlocutory applications heard on 6 September 2016 and 31 October 2016.

[3] The plaintiff consents to the request. The first defendant proposes that access to court documents be limited. The second defendant agrees that copies of decisions made in this proceeding are in the public domain and can be made available but submits that access to pleadings should be declined.

[4] This is a workplace defamation proceeding. It is still in its interlocutory stages. The pleadings are not yet complete. As a result of my decision on the pleadings, the plaintiff and the Attorney-General will be required to file and serve amended pleadings.

[5] Associate Judge Sargisson’s decision on jurisdiction,1 and my decisions on the pleadings and discovery2 are part of the formal court record. Under r 3.5, Ms Dennett is entitled to access as of right unless the court directs otherwise. There are no reasons to direct otherwise.

[6] As for copies of the pleadings, the request comes under r 3.13 of the High
Court Rules 2016. The case has not yet reached its substantive hearing stage. The court considers the matters under r 3.16 of the High Court Rules:

1 Opai v Culpan [2015] NZHC 2010.

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.

Continue reading Opai v Culpan

Details

AGLC: Opai v Culpan [2016] NZHC 3006
Case: [2016] NZHC 3006
Decision Date: 13 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Opai v Culpan, the plaintiff Melissa Jean Opai is suing the first defendant, Laurie Culpan, and the second defendant, the Attorney-General on behalf of the Commissioner of Police. The plaintiff is pursuing a defamation claim against the defendants, which is currently in the interlocutory stages. The plaintiff is seeking access to the court file, including the statement of claim and a ruling in relation to an application for costs and discovery. The second defendant has agreed that copies of decisions made in this proceeding can be made available but submits that access to pleadings should be declined.

The court had to determine whether the plaintiff should be granted access to the court file before the substantive hearing stage. The court considered the nature and reasons for the request and took into account the principles of open justice, orderly and fair administration of justice, protection of confidentiality, privacy interests, and freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. The court found that while the reason for the request was legitimate, the proceeding had not yet reached the substantive hearing stage, and the court needed to balance the competing interests of open justice and the fair administration of justice.

The court decided that the plaintiff could have copies of the decisions made in this proceeding but should not have access to other documents on the court file before the substantive hearing stage. The court noted that the proceeding was essentially an employment dispute and that there were no pressing reasons to depart from the normal practice of not allowing access to documents on the court file ahead of the substantive hearing stage. The court also considered the privacy interests of the other staff involved in the dispute. The court ordered that the Registrar should advise the plaintiff when the case reaches its close of pleadings date, at which point the plaintiff may have access to the final pleadings.

Orders