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

[2025] NZHC 1199

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2025-409-119

[2025] NZHC 1199

BETWEEN

WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
Plaintiff

AND

ATE PROPERTY LIMITED trading as MAINLAND PARKING

Defendant

Hearing:

On the papers

Counsel:

K J Crossland for Plaintiff G D Jones for Defendant

S Gill (in person), applicant for access

Judgment:

19 May 2025

JUDGMENT OF OSBORNE J

[1]        Sinead Gill, a journalist with “The Press”, applies for access to Court documents in this proceeding.

[2]        The Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017 apply to the application. The Registrar in accordance with the Rules provided a copy of the request to the parties. The defendant, recognising the applicant is entitled to have access to the formal Court record as defined in r 4, opposes any other access at this point. The plaintiff’s position is that it has “a concern over a general suppression of the Court file” and that media should have access to a redacted version of “the file”, with commercially sensitive material removed.

[3]        For the defendant, Mr Jones, by reference to the regime under the Rules, identifies the Court has exercised its jurisdiction under predecessors to the present

WILSON PARKING NEW ZEALAND LIMITED v ATE PROPERTY LIMITED [2025] NZHC 1199 [19 May 2025]

rules to restrict access to Court documents before the substantive hearing in a number of situations.1 Mr Jones refers also to the observations of Winkelmann J in GFD I LLP v Melview (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Ltd (in rec),2 where her Honour identified the principle of open justice (as it relates to fair and accurate reporting of Court hearings) may have much less force on an access application than privacy considerations when the application is made prior to the substantive hearing stage.

[4]        Mr Jones has referred to the nature of allegations made by the plaintiff which I take into consideration but do not reproduce here. I recognise there are privacy rights involved including of persons other than the defendants.

[5]        Mr Jones refers also to the fact that the defendant has made an as-yet unresolved protest to this Court’s jurisdiction on the basis the plaintiff’s claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Employment Relations Authority.

[6]        For his part, Mr Crossland for the plaintiff has produced a redacted version of the pleadings and affidavits filed for the plaintiffs. His submission is that those redactions adequately serve the purposes of protecting privacy. Mr Crossland invites the Court to have regard to discussions the defendant’s director has already had with the media in which the director has “presented his view of the parties’ dispute”. Mr Crossland implicitly suggests that it is inappropriate for the defendant to now ask the Court to “suppress” the Court file wholesale when the defendant’s director has taken “public advantage” of the opportunity to present his views through the media.

[7]        Mr Jones has replied, drawing the Court’s attention to proceedings between the parties, (including the defendant’s director personally), which are before the Employment Court. Mr Jones explains the media have had access to an Employment Court judgment in those proceedings.3 Mr Jones explains that the publicity that has taken place occurred through the defendant’s director being asked to comment after the media obtained access to the Employment Court judgment.

1      Bancorp Securities v Reid (1989) 4 PRNZ 139; Reddy Dig Contractors v Connetics HC Wellington CP 147/02, Master Gendall, 12 February 2003.

2      GFD I LLP v Melview (Kawarau Falls Station) Investments Ltd (in rec) [2012] NZHC 677 at [16].

3      Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Turner [2025] NZ EmpC 36.

Discussion

[8]        I am satisfied that this is not an appropriate case in which to grant the application for access at this point.

[9]        By reason of the protest to jurisdiction, this is a proceeding which may go no further in this Court. It may be found that the proceeding is not even properly before this Court. For this reason alone, granting the application at this point would be premature.

[10]      Furthermore, this is a situation in which the proceeding is at the typical point where allegations are being made in affidavits and other documents which remain to be responded to and considered at a substantive hearing. Rule 13 has particular application in this context. This is a sufficient consideration on its own to lead to the refusal of the application at this point.

[11]      In circumstances when the response made by the defendant’s director to media was in relation to a released decision of the Employment Court, I do not consider the response made to media in relation to the Employment Court judgment should have any impact in this Court’s consideration of the application before it relating to access to documents filed in this Court.

Outcome

[12]The application is refused.

Osborne J

Solicitors:

Shieff Angland Lawyers, Auckland Saunders Robinson Brown, Christchurch