Pure Investments Limited v Meldrum
[2025] NZHC 1518
•11 June 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND INVERCARGILL REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WAIHŌPAI ROHE
CIV-2024-425-57
[2025] NZHC 1518
BETWEEN PURE INVESTMENTS LIMITED
Plaintiff
AND
GRANT DAVID MELDRUM
First Defendant
AND
QUEENSTOWN LAKES DISTRICT COUNCIL
Second Defendant
Hearing: On the papers Appearances:
G J Ryan for Plaintiff
M E Parker for First Defendant
R M Saunders for Second DefendantJudgment:
11 June 2025
JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J
This judgment was delivered by me on 11 June 2025 at 10.30 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
PURE INVESTMENTS LIMITED v MELDRUM [2025] NZHC 1518 [11 June 2025]
[1] This is an application by Nadi Wellness Ltd (NWL) for access to the Court file in this proceeding, including to “all pleadings filed by the parties”.
[2] I interpret that to be a request for all documents on the file but placing particular importance on obtaining the pleadings filed by all parties. NWL proposes that it would be prepared to accept a condition that disclosure of the pleadings is restricted to its professional advisers for the purpose of considering and preparing any claim.
[3] The reason given for seeking access to these Court documents is that NWL is looking at making a claim against the plaintiff, Pure Investments Ltd (PIL), for losses it said it suffered after being forced to vacate its tenancy in a building owned by PIL. The building allegedly was found to have structural defects which, at the least, made the building earthquake prone, which was the reason for the tenancy being terminated.
[4] As is the usual practice, the application has been circulated to all parties to this litigation. All parties to this litigation have filed memoranda opposing NWL’s application.
[5]The plaintiff, PIL, submits the following:
(a)the nature of the request and the reasons given for the request do not favour disclosure of the documents;
(b)there is no public interest in the subject matter of the proceeding and the purpose of the request is not for public reporting, so the principle of open justice is not engaged;
(c)the orderly and fair administration of justice does not favour providing documents to a would be plaintiff considering litigation;
(d)the applicant’s request is essentially a “fishing expedition” which would be better considered in the context of pre-commencement discovery rules;
(e)the application would disclose private and commercially sensitive information relating to the plaintiff;
(f)the proceeding has yet to proceed to a substantive hearing and the parties should be allowed the opportunity to resolve the matter privately and confidentially; and
(g)disclosure of the pleadings would do no more than show the applicant untested allegations between the parties which would be of little evidential value in deciding whether to commence its own claim.
[6] The first defendant likewise opposes the application. Counsel focuses on the lack of utility of the documents for NWL’s stated purposes. For example, the suggestion that the plaintiff might be seeking an indemnity in respect of NWL’s losses is dismissed, noting there appears no basis on which PIL would be entitled to do this. Counsel for the first defendant goes on to say that if NWL’s lease was unlawfully cancelled causing losses, that is a discrete argument between NWL and PIL and is information which should already be in NWL’s knowledge. It does not require access to the Court file to advance its claim.
[7] The second defendant supports the memoranda filed by the plaintiff and the first defendant, agreeing that NWL does not have a legitimate interest in the pleadings filed to date.
Analysis
[8] This is an application for access to Court documents made under r 11 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules). Such applications are determined having regard to such matters as are listed in r 12 that are relevant to the request, and also to any objections to the request.
[9]In my view, the most material considerations in r 12 are the following:
(a)the orderly and fair administration of justice (r 12(a));
(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 principles of open justice (r 12(c)); and
(c)the freedom to seek, receive and impart information (r 12(f)).
[10] Here, because the proceedings are at an early stage, I am satisfied the right to bring and defend proceedings without the need to disclose any more information than is necessary to satisfy the principle of open justice, weighs heavily in the decision-making process. I also accept that the principle of open justice has little relevance in the present case given the private purpose for which the request is made. Furthermore, r 13 and the fact that the proceedings are at an early stage, indicates that privacy issues may be given greater weight than they would be later on.1 This is particularly so, noting that the allegations contained in pleadings were as yet untested.
[11] Here, I also consider the reasons given for seeking access are important to the decision as to whether it should be granted. One of the reasons given was NWL wanted to know if PIL was seeking an indemnity in respect of NWL’s losses. It is clear from the memorandum filed by PIL that that is not the case (nor could it be), given PIL has no authority to seek an indemnity in respect of NWL’s losses.
[12] I also struggled to see how provision of the pleadings could assist NWL in considering options in relation to the recovery of the losses it has allegedly suffered by the actions of PIL. As was noted in the first defendant’s memorandum, NWL must know what losses it claims to have suffered as a consequence of the termination of the lease. It is difficult to see how untested allegations in a separate proceeding could really assist NWL’s decision-making.
[13] Finally, I note that the parties in this litigation have agreed to mediation. I consider the principle that the parties have the right to bring and defend civil proceedings without the disclosure of any more information than necessary must
1 Crimson Consulting Ltd v Berry [2018] NZCA 460, [2019] NZAR 30 at [38].
weigh particularly heavy when the parties are endeavouring to resolve their dispute without recourse to adjudication by the Courts.
[14] Accordingly, the application for access to Court documents is declined. This does not, however, preclude a further application if the reasons for seeking access are better defined and the proceedings are further advanced.
Solicitors:
White Fox & Jones, Christchurch Parker | Cowan Lawyers, Queenstown Wynn Williams, Auckland
0