Poros v Burney

[2019] NZHC 361

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-932

[2019] NZHC 361

BETWEEN

SPYRIDON POROS

Plaintiff

AND

MAURICE BURNEY

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	K Crossland for Plaintiff D Neutze for Defendant
Judgment:	6 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 March 2019 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

POROS v BURNEY [2019] NZHC 361 [6 March 2019]

[1]                   Mr David Fisher, a reporter for the New Zealand Herald, seeks access to the Court file in this proceeding under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. Mr Fisher seeks to “understand the nature of the case through the plaintiff and respondent’s submissions, to view and copy affidavits filed in support of the case, any evidence attached to those affidavits and other documents relevant to the case which sit on the file, including any Court minutes, judgments, or other rulings”.

[2]                   Mr Fisher submits that the New Zealand Herald newspaper has a genuine and proper interest in being permitted to search the Court file and to have access to the documents sought because:

(a)The press has a duty to fairly and accurately report on issues of legitimate public interest;

(b)The public has a high level of public interest in this proceeding;

(c)The proceeding raises topical questions which are legitimately in the public interest;

(d)Having access to the documents will assist the New Zealand Herald in putting a more accurate, balanced and responsible report before the public.

He then advances detailed submissions in support of these essential propositions.

[3]                   The plaintiff has no objection to the application, but seeks an order that the names and identifying details of the children referred to in the proceeding effectively be suppressed. The defendant strongly objects to the request and submits that, if access is granted at this stage, it should be on strict conditions.

[4]                   At this stage I decline to grant Mr Fisher access to the file. I do so on the basis that the proceeding is still some way away from trial and much of the material on the Court file remains the subject of dispute. Furthermore, the material on the file contains sensitive and private information. Rule 12(c) requires the Court to take into account the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests.

[5]                   I do not detect any element of public interest in the proceeding and there appears to be nothing about it that raises topical questions relevant to the community at large. This reflects the fact that the dispute to which the proceeding relates is one of an intrinsically private nature.

[6]                   I therefore accept the defendant’s submission that the circumstances of the case are similar to those in Rice v Heaney, in which the Court declined an application by the media for access to the pleadings, including memoranda and other documents filed by the parties.1

[7]                   Furthermore, the proceeding is closely tied to a relationship property dispute currently being heard by the Family Court. The proceeding in this Court has been adjourned in part pending the outcome of the proceedings in the Family Court to avoid the risk of potentially inconsistent findings. Any application for access to the Court file should in my view properly await the final determination or resolution of both proceedings. By that stage the facts will no longer be in dispute and the Court will be able to decide on an informed basis whether, and if so to what extent, it is in the public interest for material from the proceeding to find its way into the public domain.

[8]The application for access to the Court file is declined.

Lang J

Solicitors:

Shieff Angland, Auckland Brookfields, Auckland

1      Rice v Heaney [2014] NZHC 1311 at [17-[21].