Smart v Photonic Innovations Limited (in liquidation)

[2021] NZHC 2046

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2020-409-628

[2021] NZHC 2046

UNDER

the Companies Act 1993

IN THE MATTER

of the liquidation of PHOTONIC INNOVATIONS LIMITED

BETWEEN

LYNDA JANE SMART and GEOFFREY

SEBASTIAN ERIC BROWN, as liquidators of PHOTONIC INNOVATIONS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Applicants

AND

PHOTONIC INNOVATIONS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION)

Respondent

Hearing:

(Determined on the Papers)

Counsel:

S J Jamieson and J A Higby for the Applicants

S M Kersey and J Jones for Named Parties (ORCA Haber LP and P Preena)

Judgment:

9 August 2021

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

(Access to Court file)

[1]    Mr William Mace, a senior journalist from the National Business Review (NBR) has filed a request for access to Court documents in this proceeding under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules).

[2]    As is required by those Rules, the Registry contacted the parties and those directed to be served. Of those who responded here is either no opposition to the

SMART and BROWN v PHOTONIC INNOVATIONS LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) [2021] NZHC 2046

[9 August 2021]

application (subject to the exception I mention below) or advise that the responding party will abide by the Court’s decision.

[3]    The qualification is that there are both redacted and unredacted versions of Ms Smart’s affidavit on the Court file. Counsel for the applicants opposes access to Ms Smart’s unredacted affidavit.

[4]    Mr Mace’s  application  is   the  second   such   application   by   NBR.   On 15 March 2021 I issued a Minute in relation to a request from a Ms Stuart-Menteath. The response from parties who were directed to be served to that application mirrors their response to Mr Mace’s application.

[5]I said in that Minute:

Accordingly, given the absence of objection and that there is a genuine reason for the access request from a member of the media the access request is granted save that this leave does not extend to the unredacted affidavit of  Ms Smart.

[6]    Given this proceeding has now concluded and in the absence of opposition,    I grant Mr Mace access to the file. That is on the condition that Mr Mace may not access the unredacted affidavit of Ms Smart dated 21 December 2020, being Document 5 on the Court file. Mr Mace is to liaise with the Registry to arrange inspection.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:

Tavendale and Partners, Christchurch Russell McVeagh, Auckland