Ridge v Parore - [2013] NZHC 2335

SUPPRESSION ORDERS IN PLACE: REFER PARA [38].

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2012-404-000957
[2013] NZHC 2335

UNDER Section 174 of the Companies Act 1993

BETWEEN

SALLY ANNE JUDITH RIDGE AND JAMIE DILLON RIDGE AS TRUSTEES OF THE SALLY RIDGE FAMILY TRUST

First Plaintiff

SALLY ANNE JUDITH RIDGE
Second Plaintiff

AND

ADAM CRAIG PARORE AND AARON LLOYD AS TRUSTEES OF THE ADAM PARORE FAMILY TRUST

First Defendant

ADAM CRAIG PARORE
Second Defendant

SMALL BUSINESS ACCOUNTING (NZ) LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing:

6 September 2013

Appearances:

K M Bradley for Applicant (APN New Zealand Limited) D Grove for Plaintiffs

Z Kennedy for Defendants

J Anderson (National Business Review) (in person) in support of application

Judgment:

9 September 2013

(RESERVED) JUDGMENT OF ANDREWS J
[Application to set aside non-publication order]

RIDGE & ANOR v PARORE & ORS [2013] NZHC 2335 [9 September 2013]

This judgment is delivered by me on 9 September 2013 at 2:30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

.....................................................
Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Bell Gully, Auckland (Applicant)
D Grove, Barristers, Auckland (Plaintiffs)
Z Kennedy, Minter Ellison, Rudd Watts, Auckland (Defendants)

Introduction

[1] This proceeding was begun by a statement of claim filed on 24 February 2012. In general terms, the plaintiffs sought orders pursuant to s 174 of the Companies Act 1993 relating to the shareholding in the third defendant company (“the company”), and distribution of the proceeds of sale of a residential property.

[2] On 22 March 2012, I granted an application made by the plaintiffs, consented to by the defendants, for confidentiality. I ordered that until further order of the Court, there was to be no publication of any matter relating to the proceeding, or of any information that might identify the parties, or the matters at issue between them (“the non-publication order”). The grounds on which the non-publication order was made were that the proceeding focused on matters relating to the company, which were considered to be commercially sensitive.

[3] Since the proceeding was filed, the plaintiffs have filed two amended statements of claim. The plaintiffs now claim under six causes of action, including one under the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 (“the PRA”). The defendants have filed statements of defence to each statement of claim, and have pleaded five counterclaims and/or set-off.

[4] On 30 August 2013, APN New Zealand Limited (“APN”) applied for an order setting aside or varying the non-publication order, on the grounds that the non- publication:

(a)Does not give sufficient weight to the principle of open justice and the right of the media to report judicial proceedings as the surrogates of the public;

(b)Does not give sufficient weight to the importance in a democracy of freedom of speech and in particular the freedom to receive and impart information recognised by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 (“NZBORA”);

(c)Is stated in terms which are too broad, and does not comply with the requirement that any non-publication order should be in terms…

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 Ridge v Parore

Details

AGLC: Ridge v Parore [2013] NZHC 2335
Case: [2013] NZHC 2335
Decision Date: 9 September 2013

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Ridge v Parore, the High Court of New Zealand considered an application to set aside a non-publication order made in a proceeding concerning the shareholding in a company and the distribution of the proceeds of sale of a residential property. The plaintiffs had initially sought confidentiality, which was granted by the court due to the commercial sensitivity of the information. APN New Zealand Limited subsequently applied to set aside or vary the non-publication order, arguing that it did not sufficiently weigh the principles of open justice and freedom of speech. The plaintiffs and defendants opposed the application but agreed that the non-publication order should be varied.

The central issue was whether the non-publication order should be set aside in its entirety or varied to allow the media to report on the hearing while using fictitious names. The court considered the principles of open justice and freedom of expression, as well as the privacy and commercial sensitivity concerns of the parties. It found that while the proceeding concerned private and personal matters, and the parties were publicly well-known, this did not constitute exceptional circumstances that would justify a general prohibition on publication. The court concluded that specific orders could adequately protect the interests of the parties' children and the company's financial information, without necessitating a general order preventing the publication of the parties' names.

Accordingly, the court directed that there should be no reference in any report of the proceeding to any pleading, evidence, or submissions relating directly to the parties' young children, or any financial information concerning the company. This order replaced the previous non-publication order made on 22 March 2012.

Orders