Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Ate Property Limited t/a Mainland Parking

[2025] NZHC 2291

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-119

[2025] NZHC 2291

BETWEEN

WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Plaintiff

AND

ATE PROPERTY LIMITED trading as MAINLAND PARKING

Defendant

Hearing:	On the papers
Appearances:	K J Crossland and Y Freimond for Plaintiff G D Jones for Defendant
Judgment:	13 August 2025

JUDGMENT OF DUNNINGHAM J

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 August 2025 at 11.30 am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ATE PROPERTY LIMITED [2025] NZHC 2291

[13 August 2025]

[1]    I have had referred to me an application for access to Court documents filed by the lawyer for a company, Royal Holidays Group Ltd (RHG). The stated reason for seeking the documents is because ATE Property Ltd (ATE) is the applicant in a summary judgment application against RHG in which it claims specific performance of a lease entered into between RHG as lessor and ATE as lessee. The applicant says the documents sought are “directly relevant to RHG’s opposition to that application”, saying it would be:

unequitable (sic) for ATE to be awarded specific performance when its own actions involved breach of an employment agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and misuse of confidential information by its sole director, Peter Turner in relation to carpark leases in Christchurch. We understand these same carpark leases are the subject of this proceeding.

[2]    As is standard procedure under r 11(3) of the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 (the Rules), the request for access to Court documents was circulated to both parties and a response sought by 6 August 2025. The only response has been from the defendant, ATE.

[3]    Mr Jones, counsel for ATE, notes there has already been an application for access to this Court file which was declined by Osborne J in a judgment dated       19 May 2025.1 One of the key reasons for that decision was that there was a protest to jurisdiction and so the proceeding may go no further in the High Court, with the Judge saying “For this reason alone, granting the application at this point would be premature”.2

[4]    The application was also declined relying on r 13 of the Rules, noting that the proceeding was still at the stage where allegations were being made but which had not been considered at a substantive hearing.3 On a conventional application of r 13, it was thought proper to decline disclosure of the documents.

[5]    Mr Jones points out that, in effect, those considerations still apply. This is because, on 1 August 2025, Associate Judge Paulsen dismissed the proceedings for

1      Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd v ATE Property Ltd [2025] NZHC 1199.

2 At [9].

3 At [10].

want of jurisdiction.4 He held the claims arose out of and were related to employment relationships and therefore were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the employment authority in accordance with the Supreme Court’s decision in FMV v TZB.5

[6]    In any event, Mr Jones also points out that any relevant documents will be discovered as a discovery order has been made in the High Court proceedings against RHG. Accordingly, he says RHG does not need access to the Court file to obtain documents relevant to its litigation with ATE. Instead, as was said in the case in Auckland Trotting Club Inc v Lane Neave, “the orthodox procedures for discovery and evidence … provide a more suitable avenue for determining the facts and any disputed issues that may arise.”6

[7]    In addition, because the documents relate to interlocutory steps in a proceeding that did not reach a substantive hearing, privacy interests favour access to documents to be limited under r 13 of the Rules.

[8]    Mr Jones points out that RHG is able to access the formal Court record as defined in r 4 of the Rules as of right, but for the reasons he traverses, access to any other document should be declined.

Discussion

[9]    I am satisfied that it is not appropriate to grant access to the full Court file. This is a case where the proceedings are at an early stage and there will be no substantive hearing in this forum as a consequence of the judgment of Associate Judge Paulsen. The principles in r 13 also point in favour of non-disclosure to third parties, while the allegations made are untested.

[10]   In any event, I rely on the assertion by Mr Jones that a discovery order has been made in the proceedings against RHG. Clearly, if there are documents relevant to RHG’s defence to ATE’s claim, those will be provided in the discovery process. That makes the need to rely on the Rules for such discovery redundant.

4      Wilson Parking New Zealand Ltd v ATE Property Ltd [2025] NZHC 2141.

5      FMV v TZB [2021] NZSC 102, [2021] 1 NZLR 466.

6      Auckland Trotting Club Inc v Lane Neave [2024] NZHC 924 at [28].

[11]Accordingly, the application is declined.

Solicitors:

Righteous Law, Auckland

Saunders Robinson Brown, Christchurch