Re: Robert Preston Sintes - [2025] NZCA 156

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA811/2024
[2025] NZCA 156

RE	ROBERT PRESTON SINTES Appellant

Court:	Woolford, Muir and Isac JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	9 May 2025 at 11:00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The appeal is allowed.

B The High Court judgment is set aside.

CThe application to access the divorce files of Mr Charles Bartholomew Sintes is granted. Mr Sintes is also permitted to make copies of documents on file.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Woolford J)

Mr Robert Sintes is interested in his family history. He applied to the High Court for access to the divorce file of his father Mr Charles Bartholomew Sintes and his second wife Ms Kathleen Sue Sintes (née Laird).
The Court was unable to find this file but found the divorce file of his father and his first wife (his mother) which named Ms Laird as a co‑respondent.
The application was referred to Wilkinson‑Smith J. On the basis that Mr Sintes sought access to his father’s divorce files in order to research his family history, the Judge considered whether access to the divorce file of his father and his first wife should be granted.
Both Mr Sintes’ parents are deceased but it is unknown whether Ms Laird is still alive. Wilkinson‑Smith J therefore refused the application to protect Ms Laird’s confidentiality and privacy interests. The Judge said that unless the Court was provided with evidence that Ms Laird was no longer alive the application for access to the file must be declined.
Mr Sintes now appeals against the refusal of the application. He has a right of appeal because his application was not an interlocutory application in the context of an extant proceeding. On 5 February 2025, Katz J dispensed with the requirement for Mr Sintes to file a case on appeal and in the absence of a respondent directed that the appeal be determined on the papers as requested by Mr Sintes.

The law

Under r 8 of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 every person has the right to access the formal court record relating to a civil proceeding. However, r 8 is overridden by r 7 which restricts access to all documents (including judgments or orders) relating to proceedings under the Family Proceedings Act 1980 and its predecessors. Access to the divorce files is therefore restricted and may only be permitted under r 7(1)(a) if the Judge is satisfied there is “good reason for permitting access”. Mr Sintes therefore has had to apply for access under r 11.
Rule 12 sets out matters to be considered in determining an application under r 11. Of note in this case are “the protection of other confidentiality and privacy interests” and “the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information”. Rule 13 also provides that after the substantive hearing “the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests has greater weight than would be the case during…

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 Re: Robert Preston Sintes

Details

AGLC: Re: Robert Preston Sintes [2025] NZCA 156
Case: [2025] NZCA 156
Decision Date: 9 May 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Robert Preston Sintes has appealed against the decision of the High Court which refused his application to access the divorce file of his father, Charles Bartholomew Sintes, and his second wife, Kathleen Sue Sintes (née Laird). The High Court's refusal was based on concerns for Ms Laird's privacy and confidentiality, as it was uncertain whether she was alive or deceased. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the High Court's decision was correct, considering the relevant rules and principles governing access to court documents.

The key legal issue was whether Mr Sintes' interest in accessing the divorce files outweighed the need to protect Ms Laird's confidentiality and privacy. Under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, access to documents relating to family proceedings is restricted and can only be granted if there is a good reason for permitting access. In this case, Rule 12 requires the court to consider the protection of other confidentiality and privacy interests, as well as the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. The Court of Appeal also considered that after the substantive hearing, the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests has greater weight, but it is not the only factor in the decision-making process.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court's requirement for Mr Sintes to provide evidence of Ms Laird's death was too onerous. Given that sufficient time had passed since the divorce proceedings and that there was no evidence to suggest that Ms Laird's privacy interests would be significantly impacted by granting the application, the Court held that Mr Sintes' interest in researching his family history was genuine and reasonable. The Court of Appeal set aside the High Court's judgment and granted Mr Sintes' application to access the divorce files of his father and Ms Laird. Mr Sintes is also permitted to make copies of documents on file.

Orders