Chow Group Limited v Albert Park Holdings Limited [2013] NZHC 1632 (1 July 2013)

Last Updated: 1 September 2013

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2011-404-5471 [2013] NZHC 1632

BETWEEN CHOW GROUP LIMITED Plaintiff

AND ALBERT PARK HOLDINGS LIMITED First Defendant

SPENCER HOMES LIMITED Second Defendant

GRAHAM CRUST ARCHITECTS LIMITED

Third Defendant / Counterlcaim Plaintiff

AIG INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Fourth Defendant

P H AUCKLAND PROJECT LIMITED Second Counterclaim Defendant

KIBBLEWHITE CONSULTANTS LTD Fifth Defendant / First Third Party

VERO INSURANCE NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Second Third Party

PH AUCKLAND PROJECT LIMITED Counterclaim Defendant

Date of hearing: 27 June 2013

Appearances: Mr B Hurley for Herald on Sunday

Judgment: 1 July 2013

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE J P DOOGUE [on Herald on Sunday application]

_{Court Registry Officer: Mr Shaun Hindt – [e-mail]}

CHOW GROUP LIMITED v ALBERT PARK HOLDINGS LIMITED [2013] NZHC 1632 [1 July 2013]

[1] Mr B Hurley, the Chief Reporter for the Herald on Sunday has applied for access to the High Court file relating to this litigation.

[2] The proceedings have not yet reached the hearing stage and the application is therefore governed by r 3.13. Some of the parties to the litigation oppose the application. The plaintiff neither consented nor opposed the Herald on Sunday application. Essentially the point taken is that no utility would be served by the application being granted. It was pointed out that the Herald on Sunday says there was high interest in the construction to take place on the site. However, the present proceedings do not relate to the construction on the site, they relate to a claim for damages for the failure of the previous structure on the site.

[3] I was also told that the present plaintiffs have sold the site and that their future activities relating to the site could not give rise to any public interest.

[4] On the other hand, with reference to the relevant considerations in r 3.16, I am not satisfied that granting access to the file would impede the orderly administration of justice. There are no privacy issues engaged, such as there are in cases involving children, vulnerable members of the community or family dealings. The principle of open justice is one of the factors to be taken into account, particularly in encouraging fair and accurate reporting of court matters. Overall I consider that there is no reason why access should not be granted. The circumstances of the failure of the structure on the site understandably roused widespread public interest. It may be that little of interest is going to occur until the trial takes place (if in fact it does). It seems likely that an examination of the pleadings file and the papers relating to the case management of the case are not going to throw much light upon the substance of the dispute between the parties. Nonetheless, having regard to the r 3.16 factors that I have already mentioned, I

_{conclude on balance that the application ought to be granted and I order accordingly.}

J.P. Doogue

Associate Judge