[1] This is a contempt application filed by the Solicitor-General arising from a civil proceeding initiated by the Earthquake Commission against Mr Krieger and other unknown defendants.1 In that proceeding EQC initially obtained an interim injunction and subsequently a permanent injunction restraining disclosure of information in a spreadsheet inadvertently sent by it to an earthquake repair contractor. Mr Krieger received a copy of the spreadsheet and facilitated internet
access to its contents.

[2] The present contempt application raises two issues for determination:

1 Earthquake Commission v Krieger & Ors HC Wellington CIV-2013-485-000530.

THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR NEW ZEALAND v KRIEGER [2014] NZHC 172 [17 February 2014]

(a) whether Mr Krieger has breached the terms of the High Court injunction, and

(b)if so, whether his conduct was a contempt of Court justifying the imposition of a penalty, namely a fine.

The background to the alleged contempt

[3] EQC is a statutory body established by the Earthquake Commission Act

1993. EQC is a Crown entity which administers the insurance of residential properties against certain natural disasters, including earthquakes. Homeowners who take out fire insurance with an insurance company are deemed to be insured against natural disaster damage to the extent provided in the Act.2 The premiums for such cover are collected by the insurance companies and paid to EQC. The terms and limits of the cover provided under the Act are not relevant to the issues I have to determine.

[4] Commencing on 4 September 2010 the greater Christchurch area was hit by several powerful earthquakes, and swarms of aftershocks. The second major earthquake on 22 February 2011 caused multiple deaths and the earthquakes as a whole caused widespread property devastation.

[5] EQC engaged a lead contractor to assess and arrange repair work in relation to residential property damage. By September 2012 information had been collated relating to approximately 83,000 individual claims. EQC carried this information into a spreadsheet which contained 30 fields of information about each claim. Collins J, who heard EQC’s claim for injunctive relief, described these fields under
three headings:3

(1) Information about individual claims. This information includes information that could easily lead to the identification of individuals. It includes a claimant’s suburb, street name and street number and it includes information about each individual insurance claim, including the estimated value of those claims and the progress that was being made to remedy the damage suffered by each claimant.

2 At s 18.
3 Earthquake Commission v Krieger & Ors [2013] NZHC 3140 at [7].

(2) Information of a commercial nature. This information includes confidential information relating to the costs of repairing damage suffered by…

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 Solicitor-General v Krieger

Details

AGLC: Solicitor-General v Krieger [2014] NZHC 172
Case: [2014] NZHC 172
Decision Date: 17 February 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Solicitor-General v Krieger arose from proceedings initiated by the Earthquake Commission (EQC) against Mr Krieger and other unknown defendants, where an interim and then permanent injunction was obtained restraining the disclosure of information contained in a spreadsheet sent by EQC to an earthquake repair contractor. The present contempt application raises two issues: whether Mr Krieger breached the terms of the High Court injunction, and if so, whether his conduct was a contempt of Court justifying the imposition of a penalty, namely a fine. The Court found that both the interim and permanent injunctions were clear and unambiguous and that Mr Krieger was aware of them. The Court held that Mr Krieger did breach the Court orders by providing hyperlinks to other websites from which the spreadsheet could be downloaded, facilitating disclosure of the information. The Court found that Mr Krieger's conduct was deliberate and that he knew the obligation cast by the order of the Court but intentionally breached that obligation. The Court imposed a fine of $5,000 on Mr Krieger and reserved the issue of costs for later determination.

Orders