Ready v The Christian Church Community Trust

[2021] NZHC 120

INTERIM ORDER SUPPRESSING THE NAMES AND/OR IDENTITIES OF ANYONE NAMED OR IDENTIFIABLE IN ANY OF THE COURT PAPERS FILED IN THIS PROCEEDING. THIS INTERIM ORDER IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AT PARA [12] OF THE JUDGMENT DATED

22 OCTOBER 2020 (Ready v The Christchurch Church Community Trust [2020] NZHC 2781).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE

CIV-2020-418-12

[2021] NZHC 120

BETWEEN

JOHN READY

Plaintiff

AND

THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST

First Defendant

AND

FERVENT STEDFAST AND OTHERS

Second Defendants

continued ….2

Hearing:

(Determined on the papers)

Counsel:

B P Henry and D J Gates for the Plaintiff

G Gallaway and E Whiteside for the First and Second Defendants R W Raymond QC and A V Foot for the Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants

A M Watkins, J L S Shaw and C M Hanafin for the Potential Beneficiaries of The Christian Church Community Trust

Judgment:

10 February 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Applications for in-court media coverage)

This judgment was delivered by me on 10 February 2021 at 10.30 am

pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 10 February 2021

READY v THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST [2021] NZHC 120 [10 February 2021]

AND AND

HOWARD TEMPLE AND OTHERS

Third Defendants

CHRISTIAN PARTNERS NOMINEE LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

AND

FAITHFUL PILGRIM AND OTHERS

Fifth Defendants

[1]    An  in-person  case  management  conference  is  scheduled  for  Thursday  11 February 2021. While this is a Greymouth Registry file, the conference is being held in Christchurch before me.

[2]Applications for in-court media coverage have been received.

[3]    I have received submissions from counsel for the various parties interested in this proceeding including counsel for the Attorney-General who was directed to be served.

[4]    I have been assisted in this judgment by the decision of Nation J in  Thompson v Invercargill City Council, which concerned an application for in-court media coverage of a chambers hearing.1   The case management conference on     11 February 2021 is in chambers and so his Honour’s decision is of direct relevance.

[5]    Guideline 5(4) of the In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines (the Guidelines) provides:2

While the Judge is sitting in court for chambers or in closed court, no electronic communication may take place.

1      Thompson v Invercargill City Council [2020] NZHC 13.

2      In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2016, Guideline 5(4). See also Thompson, above n 1, at [9], citing Smith v Claims Resolution Service Ltd [2018] NZHC 3180.

[6]    Provisions in the schedules to the Guidelines also prohibit the filming, recording of sound and taking of photographs of matters heard in chambers.3

[7]As recorded in his Honour’s judgment at [12]:

A hearing in chambers is a hearing that takes place in circumstances in which the general public is not admitted, except with the leave of the Judge.⁴

[8]At [13] his Honour noted:

The High Court Rules recognise the right of the media to be present during  a hearing in chambers unless the Court orders otherwise.

[9]    Rule 7.35 of the High Court Rules 2016 provides that the particulars of         a hearing in chambers of an interlocutory application may be published unless a Judge or Registrar directs otherwise.

[10]   While the 11 February 2021 conference is not strictly the hearing of an interlocutory application – it is in the nature of a discussion of the issues between counsel - nonetheless I note that in the Guidelines a trial includes a civil proceeding or any part thereof so it will include a case management conference.5

[11]   The starting position is that chambers matters should not be publicly broadcast unless there are good reasons for doing so.6

[12]I now turn to the two in-court media applications that have been made.

Application by NZME

[13]   The first application is by NZME and seeks permission to take film, photographs and record sound at the case management conference.

3      Schedule 1, cl 4; sch 2, cl 3; sch 3, cl 1.

4      Thompson, above n 1, at [12], citing High Court Rules 2016, r 1.3.

5      In-Court Media Coverage Guidelines 2016, Guideline 3(1).

6      Thompson, above n 1, at [17], citing Sagapolu  v  Commonwealth  Securities  Ltd  (2002)  16 PRNZ 191 (HC) at [5].

[14]   NZME is a recognised media company. In accordance with the recognised right of the media to be present during a hearing in chambers,  leave is given to     Mr Beyer of NZME to attend the case management conference on 11 February 2021.

[15]   However, Mr Beyer’s application to take film, photographs or record sound is declined. There is nothing in the circumstances of this case, particularly given its early stage, to warrant a departure from the normal rule that chambers hearings are not subject to recording.

[16]   Without in any way predetermining the matter, Mr Beyer should be aware that there is a real likelihood that significant parts of the case management conference will be subject to applications to suppress the matters covered.

Application by Wandering Films International Pty Limited

[17]   The second application is by Wandering Films International Pty Limited. All counsel oppose that application and it is declined.

[18]   The application is to take film and sound recordings at the chambers hearing and I have already referred to the fact that such is only allowed in truly exceptional cases. Further, the applicant is a film company and not a media outlet within the definition of the Guidelines.

[19]   There is something in the submission of Mr Raymond QC, counsel for the third, fourth and fifth defendants, that the company’s interest is from an entertainment rather than a reporting point of view.

[20]Wandering Films International Pty Ltd’s application is declined.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:

Shanahans, Auckland (for the Plaintiff)

Copy to counsel: B P Henry and D J Gates, Barristers, Auckland

Chapman Tripp, Christchurch (for the First and Second Defendants)

Duncan Cotterill, Christchurch (for Third, Fourth and Fifth Defendants)
Copy to counsel: R W Raymond QC, Barrister, Christchurch

Wynn Williams, Christchurch (for the potential Beneficiaries of the First Defendant) Copy to:

Attorney-General

Public Trust, Christchurch (G P Traves) NZME

Wandering Films International Pty Ltd