Russell McVeagh - [2023] NZHC 3806

RIGHTS OF ACCESS GRANTED MAY NOT BE EXERCISED UNTIL 10 AM ON 8 JANUARY 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-404-2421

[2023] NZHC 3806

BETWEEN
RUSSELL MCVEAGH

Plaintiff

AND

NZ FUTURE FOREST PRODUCTS LTD

Defendant

CIV-2022-404-1284

BETWEEN

ROBT JONES 151 LTD

Judgment Creditor

AND

DAVID RYAN HENRY

Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 12 October 2023

Appearances:

K M Massey for Russell McVeagh (excused) O K Thomas for David Henry

Ms V Young (applicant)

Judgment:

20 December 2023

JUDGMENT OF BREWER J

[Application for access to court documents]

This judgment was delivered by me on 20 December 2023 at 10 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Russell McVeagh (Auckland) for Russell McVeagh Shanahans Law Ltd (Auckland) for David Henry Copy to Victoria Young, BusinessDesk

RUSSELL MCVEAGH v NZ FUTURE FOREST PRODUCTS LTD [2023] NZHC 3806 [20 December 2023]

Introduction

[1]In his Minute of 28 July 2023, van Bohemen J recorded:

[1] Victoria Young of Business Desk has applied, in accordance with the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules), for access to documents on two High Court files.

[2]In the case of Russell McVeagh v NZ Future Forest Products Ltd
HC Auckland CIV-2021-404-2421, Ms Young has applied for access to: All documents on the file including but not limited to
Application to liquidate Supporting material
Any minutes, judgments or directions on the file.

[3] Ms Young says she seeks access to these documents in the public interest and requires the information as part of a feature on Mr David Henry and NZ Future Forest Products.

[4] In the case of Robert Jones 151 Ltd v David Ryan Henry HC Auckland CIV-2022-404-1284, Ms Young has applied for access to:

1.Bankruptcy application and supporting evidence

2.Opposition to bankruptcy and supporting evidence

Minutes judgments and directions which make up the formal record, which the public have an automatic right to per [the Rules] 8(1).

[5] Ms Young says she seeks access to these documents as the matter is in the public interest, she is to write an article about Mr David Henry’s debt trail, and liquidations of firms directed by Mr Henry have already been written and there is a public interest because Mr Henry has been trying to raise money, including from government agencies in the past.

[2]This Judgment determines Ms Young’s applications.

Ms Young’s applications

[3] The only opposition is from Mr David Henry who was represented by Ms Thomas. Ms Young appeared in person.

[4] I will first refer to the legal principles applicable as they are the context for the parties’ contentions.

[5]I adopt gratefully Cull J’s recent summary of the principles:1

[5] The Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules) guide the Court’s discretion on whether to grant a third party access to court documents. Every person has a general right of access to the formal Court record in the proceeding, defined in r 4 of…

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 Russell McVeagh

Details

AGLC: Russell McVeagh [2023] NZHC 3806
Case: [2023] NZHC 3806
Decision Date: 20 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand was called upon to decide on the applications by Victoria Young for access to documents in two separate cases, namely Russell McVeagh v NZ Future Forest Products Ltd and Robert Jones 151 Ltd v David Ryan Henry. The primary legal issue before the court was whether Victoria Young, a journalist, should be granted access to certain court documents that were not part of the formal court record, specifically the affidavits filed by David Henry in both proceedings. David Henry opposed the application, arguing that the disclosure of these documents would infringe upon his privacy and confidentiality rights.

The court considered the principles outlined in the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, including the principle of open justice and the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests. The court determined that while open justice is a fundamental principle, it must be balanced against other factors such as the privacy rights of individuals. The court noted that the principle of open justice is not solely for ensuring fair and accurate reporting but also for encouraging fair and accurate comment on court decisions. The court found that the principle of open justice and the encouragement of accurate reporting and comment on court decisions was particularly relevant to the NZ Future Forest Products Ltd case, given the public interest in understanding the liquidation of the company and the role of David Henry. However, regarding the affidavit in the bankruptcy case, the court concluded that the protection of Mr. Henry's privacy interests outweighed the principle of open justice.

The court granted Victoria Young's application for access to the documents in the NZ Future Forest Products Ltd case without any conditions. For the Robert Jones 151 Ltd case, the court granted access to the documents but imposed a condition that Victoria Young would not have access to Mr. Henry's affidavit dated 5 December 2022, due to the personal and sensitive financial information it contained. The court also granted a request by Ms. Thomas, on behalf of David Henry, to delay the commencement of any right of access to the files by seven days, which means that the rights of access will only be exercisable from 10 am on 8 January 2024.

Orders