Roebuck v Liddle - [2023] NZHC 665

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND NAPIER REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA AHURIRI ROHE

CIV-2021-441-70

[2023] NZHC 665

UNDER the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017

BETWEEN

JASON GREGORY ROEBUCK AND VICTORIA ROEBUCK

First Plaintiffs

JASON GREGORY ROEBUCK, VICTORIA ANN ROEBUCK AND PETER JOHN ROEBUCK AS TRUSTEES OF THE TAHI TRUST

Second Plaintiffs

AND

ROBERT JAMES LIDDLE

First Defendant

AMANDA ELIZABETH LIDDLE
Second Defendant

HASTING DISTRICT COUNCIL
Third Defendant

SIGMA CONSULTING ENGINEERS LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

REDHEAD ARCHITECTURE LIMITED
Fifth Defendant

FORMWORKS HB LIMITED
Sixth Defendant

HARDCORE CONCRETE LIMITED
Seventh Defendant

M J FOGARTY PAINTING & DECORATING LIMITED

Eighth Defendant

ROEBUCK AND ROEBUCK & ANOR v LIDDLE & LIDDLE & ORS [2023] NZHC 665 [29 March 2023]

WYNANDS MASONRY LIMITED
Ninth Defendant

REALDEAL ROOFING LIMITED
Tenth Defendant

HAWKES BAY MEMBRANE SOLUTIONS LIMITED
Eleventh Defendant

MITCHELL LIETZ
Twelfth Defendant

Hearing: On the Papers

Judgment:

29 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF McQUEEN J

[Access to Court documents]

Introduction

[1] Tom Hunt, a reporter from Stuff NZ, has made a request for access to court documents in this proceeding. He seeks “all relevant court documents including pleadings and affidavits”, for the purpose of ‘following-up’ on stories that he has previously written regarding events relating to this proceeding.1 His application says that he would be willing to comply with any conditions imposed by the court but that he would prefer if there were no conditions on the use of any information to which he may be entitled.

Legal framework for access to court documents

[2] Applications for access to court documents are assessed within the framework provided by the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017. Rule 8 provides that every person has the right to access the formal court record relating to a civil proceeding. The “formal court record” is defined in r 4 to include “a judgment, an order, or a minute of the court, including any record of the reasons given by a

1 See ‘Negligent’ builder fined in long-running dispute over unfinished home | Stuff.co.nz

Judge”. It also includes the register of documents filed in the proceeding.2 Thus, these are documents to which Mr Hunt may have access without permission from the Court. To obtain such documents, r 10(1) requires Mr Hunt to ask the Registrar “for access to 1 or more documents”. If necessary, to first understand what documents are available, Mr Hunt can request the register of documents filed in the proceeding.

[3] Given Mr Hunt’s request for “all court documents including pleadings and affidavits”, it is necessary to consider whether I should allow him access to other documents on the file under r 11.

Rule 11(2) requires that a request for access to court documents:

(a)identify the person making the request and their address;

(b)sets out sufficient particulars of the document to enable the Registrar to identify it;

(c)gives reasons for asking to access the document, which must be set out the purpose for which the access is sought;

(d)sets out any conditions…

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 Roebuck v Liddle

Details

AGLC: Roebuck v Liddle [2023] NZHC 665
Case: [2023] NZHC 665
Decision Date: 29 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Roebuck v Liddle, the plaintiff sought access to court documents from the Napier Registry of the High Court of New Zealand. The case involved multiple parties, including the Roebucks, Liddles, and various construction companies and councils. The dispute centred on the access to court documents by a journalist, Tom Hunt, who sought all relevant documents, including pleadings and affidavits, to follow up on previous stories he had written about the case. The court was required to decide whether to grant the journalist access to the requested documents under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017.

The court considered the request under Rule 11 of the Rules, which mandates that a request for access to court documents must be sufficiently particularised, identifying the person making the request, providing sufficient particulars of the document, and giving reasons for the request. The court noted that Mr Hunt's request was overly broad and vague, lacking specificity about which documents he sought. The court sympathised with the fourth defendant's view that the request was insufficiently particularised. Consequently, the court declined the request, noting that Mr Hunt could make a further application at a later date if he provided a more detailed and particularised request. The court did not need to assess the adequacy of the purpose for the request, but it observed that the purpose should be articulated clearly to allow the court to weigh the request against the relevant factors.

The court dismissed the application, ruling that Mr Hunt's request did not comply with the necessary particularisation requirements under Rule 11(8). The decision emphasised the importance of specific and clear requests when seeking access to court documents, highlighting that broadly cast and vague requests may be refused.

Orders