Rice v Heaney - [2014] NZHC 1311

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-000063 [2014] NZHC 1311

BETWEEN
HELEN MARIA RICE

Plaintiff

AND

DAVID JONATHAN HEANEY QC First Defendant

SUSAN ANNE THODEY Second Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

J R Billington QC for the Plaintiff
M G Ring QC for the Defendants

Judgment:

11 June 2014

RESERVED JUDGMENT OF ELLIS J

This judgment was delivered by me on Wednesday 11 June 2014 at 3.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date:………………………….

Counsel/Solicitors:
J R Billington QC, Barrister, Auckland
M G Ring QC, Barrister, Auckland

RICE v HEANEY QC [2014] NZHC 1311 [11 June 2014]

[1] National Business Review (NBR) seeks access to the court file in relation to these proceedings which, in general terms, are concerned with matters consequential upon the dissolution of the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendants. In particular, NBR seeks to view the statement of claim, statement of defence and “any other court minutes” relating to the case. There is at present only one minute on the file.

[2] The reasons given by NBR in support of its request are that:1
To review the court file will enable the full and accurate reporting of the case. The case involves a dispute between David Heaney, partner at Heaney &
Partners, which makes the bulk of its revenue from ratepayers through its work
for the Auckland Council on leaky buildings, and his former legal partner Helen Rice. It is important to the public of Auckland to know what is going on within the law firm it funds through its rates.

[3] NBR’s application is opposed by the defendants and I have received the

submissions filed on their behalf. The plaintiff abides the decision of the Court.

The relevant rules

[4] Rule 3.9 of the High Court Rules provides that during the substantive hearing of a proceeding and until “the close of the 20th working day after the court has given the final judgment” there is a prima facie entitlement to access a court file including (inter alia) any pleading, reference, notice, or application filed. An application must nonetheless be made and the Court retains a discretion to deny such access.

[5] But because the present matter is not yet at the substantive hearing stage, the application is governed by r 3.13, which relevantly provides:

(1) This rule applies whenever the permission of the court is necessary under these rules and is sought to access a document, court file, or any part of the formal court record, except where access may be sought under rule
3.9.

(2) An application under this rule is made informally to the Registrar by a letter that –

(a) identifies the document, court file, or part of the formal court record that the applicant seeks to access; and

1 NBR letter to the Court dated 14 May 2014.

(b) gives the reasons for the application.

(3) The application is heard and determined by a Judge or, if a Judge directs…

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 Rice v Heaney

Details

AGLC: Rice v Heaney [2014] NZHC 1311
Case: [2014] NZHC 1311
Decision Date: 11 June 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand considered a request by National Business Review (NBR) to access the court file in a dispute between the plaintiff, Helen Maria Rice, and the defendants, David Jonathan Heaney QC and Susan Anne Thodey. The dispute arises from matters consequential to the dissolution of a partnership between Rice and the defendants. NBR sought access to the statement of claim, statement of defence, and any other court minutes. The defendants opposed the application, emphasizing the confidential and commercially sensitive nature of the information contained in the pleadings. They argued that early disclosure would not serve the principles of open justice, would not be conducive to the fair administration of justice, and would infringe on their privacy interests.

The court examined the relevant factors under Rule 3.16 of the High Court Rules, which include the administration of justice, protection of confidentiality and privacy interests, the principle of open justice, and freedom to seek, receive, and impart information. The court found that at this early stage of the proceedings, there were no court hearings or decisions to report on, and thus the principles of open justice did not apply with full force. The court also considered that the dispute was private, not involving public funds or the interests of the Auckland Council, despite the defendants' occasional representation of the council.

The court granted access to the single minute on the file, which contained only procedural matters and timetable directions, as it did not involve confidential or sensitive information. However, the court denied access to the pleadings, stating that disclosure at this stage would not be conducive to the fair administration of justice and would potentially prejudice the defendants. The court decided to revisit the matter if necessary when interlocutory hearings had been held and decisions given.

The court’s final order denied NBR access to the pleadings but allowed access to the minute of 8 May 2014. The defendants were granted the opportunity to provide redacted versions of the documents if the court were to grant access at a later stage.

Orders