High Court Judgments of Public Interest
This page provides access to judgments of the High Court in the last 90 days deemed to be of particular public interest.
More information about finding court judgments is available on the judgments section of this website.
It is the responsibility of users of the information contained in these decisions to ensure compliance with conditions or other legal obligations governing access, release, storage and re-publication. See also the guide on statutory provisions that prohibit publication of certain information in certain circumstances. If in doubt you should consult the court that issued the decision(s). Judicial Decisions are presented in PDF format to preserve the integrity of the documents.
HELD: Application dismissed. Damages unlikely to be an adequate remedy for either party. Balance of convenience factors, however, as well as the public interest and interests of third parties, weighed against making the interim orders sought. Damages potentially suffered by NZME for loss of chance to match the competing offer, in circumstances where there appeared to be little or no prospect of NZME being able to do so (given the need for NZME to obtain Commerce Commission clearance) are likely to be modest. Damages suffered by Nine, in the event that delay resulted in (or contributed to) the failure of negotiations with the competing bidder, could be significant. In addition, the public interest in maintaining robust competition in the media marketplace and the interests of third parties, including Stuff's employees, weighed against granting an injunction.
In the meantime Mr Boyle had advised SSC of the investigation into Mr Peters' NZS. Mr Boyle advised his Minister, Ms Tolley. Mr Hughes advised his Minister Ms Bennett. On 26 August 2017, less than a month out from the general election, Mr Peters was contacted by a journalist who obviously knew details of the overpayment and the investigation by MSD. Mr Peters issued a press statement the next day to mitigate personal and political damage. Mr Peters subsequently commenced these proceedings. Held: Mr Peters had a reasonable expectation that the details of the payment irregularity would be kept private and not disclosed to parties who did not have a genuine need to know about it or a proper interest in knowing about it. In particular, he had a reasonable expectation that the details of the payment irregularity would not be disclosed to the media.
The deliberate disclosure of details of the payment irregularity to the media would be regarded as highly offensive to an objective reasonable person. Mr Peters claims against the defendants failed. He was not able to establish they were responsible for the disclosure of the payment irregularity to the media. Mr Peters' counsel conceded in closing that neither Ms Bennett nor Ms Tolley was directly responsible for the disclosure. The disclosure by Mr Boyle to the SSC and by both Messrs Hughes and Boyle to their Ministers were for a proper purpose and the Ministers had a genuine interest in knowing the details of the payment irregularity. The plaintiff was unable to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to make out a claim against any of the defendants. Mr Peters' claims for damages and declarations were dismissed.
1. All of the cryptocurrencies constitute “property” under the Companies Act.
2. The cryptocurrencies are held on express trust by Cryptopia for the accountholders as beneficiaries. A separate trust exists for each type of cryptocurrrency.
3. If the liquidators are unable to identify any particular accountholder, the process prescribed by s 76 Trustee Act 1956 should be followed.
4. To the extent the liquidators recover stolen digital assets, they are to be dealt with pro rata within each specific trust according to the amounts recovered assessed against the amounts stolen.
Held: It does not. Parliament clearly chose to base the Act on the concept of "coupledom", and it does not apply to relationships of >2 persons. Nor does the statutory scheme as enacted anticipate such relationships being divided into dyadic relationships to 'fit' the Act, which some academics have suggested could be done. Although there is a forcible policy argument the Act should be extended, it is for Parliament, not the Court, to revisit the scope of the Act. Observed that, until that happens, developing equity, using the principles of the PRA, may offer some relief.
The Director of Human Rights Proceedings and Privacy Commissioner intervened in support. HELD: The redacted details were not his personal information. "Personal information" is a legal term, and its definition must be workable across a range of uses within the Act and not be affected by other purposes. The information was not "mixed information" - the redactions simply appeared alongside the information. There was no interference with privacy.