X v Attorney-General - [2024] NZHC 1723

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF PERSONS, SHIPS, AND NAVAL BASES, INCLUDING RANKS AND QUALIFICATIONS, AS OUTLINED AT PARAGRAPH [2] OF THIS JUDGMENT.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2015-485-467

[2024] NZHC 1723

BETWEEN
X

Plaintiff

AND

THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL OF NEW ZEALAND

First Defendant

AND

THE MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (UNITED KINGDOM)

Second Defendant

On the Papers

Judgment:

27 June 2024

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

[Access to Court documents]

Introduction

[1] Frontline Law Ltd, a firm of solicitors, seeks access to court documents on behalf of a client. The proceeding in which the documents are held is X v Attorney-General.1 The purpose of the request is to “assess the similarities” between the firm’s client’s case, and the case of X. The applicant seeks access to the entire Court file, including:

1 X v Attorney General [2017] 3 NZLR 115; [2017] NZHC 768.

X v ATTORNEY-GENERAL & ANOR [2024] NZHC 1723 [27 June 2024]

(a)all pleadings filed;

(b)all interlocutory applications;

(c)all rulings;

(d)all affidavits; and

(e)all evidence before the Court.

[2] The proceedings in X were ultimately settled before trial, and Doogue J made wide-ranging suppression orders at the request of the parties. Those orders suppressed the following information:2

(a)the names and ranks of the other female NZDF Officers that served on the same ships as the plaintiff;

(b)the names, ranks and roles of any current or past members of the Royal Navy named in the pleadings or mentioned in court;

(c)the names of the ships on which the plaintiff served abroad in the United Kingdom;

(d)the names and locations of the naval bases at which the plaintiff was based and/or accommodated; and

(e)the qualifications the plaintiff obtained or sought to obtain prior to and while serving in the Royal New Zealand Navy that relate to her United Kingdom experience, subject to the exception that the plaintiff may refer to the qualification she has obtained for the purposes of an application for employment or career advice;

[3]The reasons for making these orders were:3

2 X v Attorney-General [2019] NZHC 2136 at [7].
3 At [6].

(a)the allegations in the statement of claim had not been the subject of evidence, argument or submission and the Court had not (and would not) make findings on those allegations;

(b)identification of Royal Navy bases, ships, locations and times may identify the individuals within the Royal Navy who had been named as alleged perpetrators of alleged acts in this proceeding or might cast undue suspicion on other persons who had not been named;

(c)suppression of the names of the other female NZDF Officers that served on the same ships as the Plaintiff was necessary to protect their privacy and because identification of those Officers would identify the Royal Navy ships that were sought to be suppressed by the Second Defendant (and therefore identify the alleged perpetrators or cast undue suspicion on other persons);

(d)none of the particulars sought…

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 X v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: X v Attorney-General [2024] NZHC 1723
Case: [2024] NZHC 1723
Decision Date: 27 June 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, X, a plaintiff, sought access to court documents from the proceeding X v Attorney-General, which was ultimately settled before trial. The case involved sensitive information regarding the plaintiff's service in the Royal New Zealand Navy and the United Kingdom. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Frontline Law Ltd, a firm of solicitors, should be granted access to the entire Court file of the settled proceeding for the purpose of assessing the similarities between their client's case and that of X. The Court had to balance various factors under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, including the orderly and fair administration of justice, the right to privacy, the principle of open justice, and the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests.

The Court concluded that the application should be declined under rule 11 of the Rules. The Court found that the purpose of the request, which was to assist an intending plaintiff in assessing the similarities of their case to that of X, did not outweigh the importance of protecting privacy and confidentiality. The Court highlighted that the settled nature of the proceeding and the wide-ranging suppression orders already in place made it difficult to grant access without breaching those orders. Additionally, the Court noted the administrative burden and potential anxiety for individuals involved in the proceeding if access were granted. While there is a right of access to the formal court record under rule 8, this right does not extend to the documents covered by the suppression orders.

The Court ultimately declined the application for access to the Court file, emphasizing the need to protect privacy and confidentiality interests in light of the sensitive nature of the proceeding. The Court also noted the limited public interest in granting access for the purpose of assessing the similarities of another case.

Orders