Legal Research
Cases
Peters v Bennett

Peters v Bennett

Case [2020] NZHC 761 20 April 2020

Reasonable Expectation of Privacy

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-001122

[2020] NZHC 761

BETWEEN
WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS

Plaintiff

AND

PAULA BENNETT

First Defendant

…/2

Hearing: 4-8, 11-13 November 2019

Appearances:

B P Henry and A R Kenwright for Plaintiff

B D Gray QC, P T Kiely and H M Z Ford for First and Third Defendants

V E Casey QC, N J Wills, S P R Conway and R J Warren for Second and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

20 April 2020

JUDGMENT OF VENNING J

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 April 2020 at 2.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

Solicitors: Clifton Killip Lyon, Auckland
Kiely Thompson Caisley, Auckland Crown Law, Wellington

Counsel:B Henry/S Singh Auckland B Gray QC, Auckland
V Casey QC, Wellington

PETERS v BENNETT & ORS [2020] NZHC 761 [20 April 2020]

AND
PETER HUGHES

Second Defendant

ANNE MERRILYN TOLLEY
Third Defendant

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL sued on behalf of the MINISTRY OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Fourth Defendant

BRENDAN BOYLE

Fifth Defendant

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction [1]

The claim [7]

Witnesses  [8]
Mr Peters’ application for NZS  [10]
Interpretation of the form  [18]

Events in 2017 [30]

The MSD investigation [32]

Mr Boyle’s involvement [41]

Mr Hughes’ involvement [50]

The Ministers’ involvement [52]

The evidence of the subpoenaed witnesses – disclosure to the media [67] The defendants’ expert [77]

Tort of privacy [81]

Privacy Act 1993 [89]

Defamation [93]

A reasonable expectation of privacy [94]

Highly offensive [118]
Mr Peters’ press release [121]

The pleaded claim against the first and third defendants [128]

Res ipsa loquitur [141]
Fourth cause of action [156]

Cabinet Manual 2017 [158]

The pleaded claim against the second, fourth and fifth defendants [170] Second cause of action [237]

Third cause of action [248]

The Crown defendants’ positive defences [253] Section 86 of the State Sector Act 1988 [254] Public concern defence [264]

Damages [268]

Summary/result [276]

Costs [282]

Introduction

[1] The Right Honourable Winston Peters claims the defendants have breached his privacy.

[2] In April 2010, Mr Peters applied for and was granted New Zealand Superannuation (NZS) by the Ministry of Social Development (MSD).1 Mr Peters was paid NZS at the single rate. In May 2017, Mr Peters’ partner, Ms Trotman, applied for NZS. In the course of processing her application, MSD reviewed Mr Peters’ file. The review raised the question of why he was being paid NZS at the single rate when he had a partner. An MSD officer met with Mr Peters in July 2017. It was agreed Mr Peters had been overpaid NZS as he was not single and had a partner, Ms Trotman, at the time he was granted NZS. Mr Peters immediately arranged for the overpayment to be repaid.

[3] In the meantime, in June 2017, Mr Boyle, the chief executive of the MSD, had disclosed the overpayment and the MSD investigation into it (the payment irregularity) to the State Services…

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 Peters v Bennett

Details

AGLC: Peters v Bennett [2020] NZHC 761
Case: [2020] NZHC 761
Decision Date: 20 April 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Winston Raymond Peters, a prominent New Zealand politician, sued several defendants, including the Minister for State Services, Minister of Social Welfare, and the Attorney General on behalf of the Ministry of Social Development, for breach of privacy. Mr Peters claimed that the defendants breached his right to privacy by disclosing to the media that he had been overpaid New Zealand Superannuation (NZS). Mr Peters sought declaratory relief and damages. The court considered whether the defendants breached Mr Peters' reasonable expectation of privacy and whether the disclosure of the payment irregularity was highly offensive. The court concluded that Mr Peters had a reasonable expectation that the details of the payment irregularity would be kept private, particularly from the media. The disclosure of the details of the payment irregularity to the media would be regarded as highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. However, Mr Peters was unable to establish that the defendants were responsible for the disclosure of the payment irregularity to the media. The plaintiff's claims for damages and declarations were dismissed, and costs were reserved.

Orders