Defendant argues Employment Relations Authority has exclusive jurisdiction over case
New Zealand’s High Court has considered it inappropriate to grant a journalist’s application prematurely seeking access to court documents, given that the proceeding was at an early stage and the defendant had raised a jurisdictional challenge.
In Wilson Parking New Zealand Limited v Ate Property Limited t/a Mainland Parking, [2025] NZHC 1199, the court’s registrar gave the parties copies of the journalist’s request in line with the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, which applied to the request.
The defendant accepted the applicant’s entitlement to access to the formal court record as defined in r. 4. However, it opposed any other access at this point of the proceeding.
The defendant’s counsel alleged that the court had previously exercised its jurisdiction to restrict access to court documents before the substantive hearing. In one case, a judge favoured privacy considerations over the open justice principle when the applicant applied for access to documents prior to the substantive hearing stage.
The defendant’s counsel pointed out that the defendant had a pending challenge regarding the court’s jurisdiction. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s claims fell within the Employment Relations Authority’s exclusive jurisdiction.
On the other hand, the plaintiff alleged that the media should receive access to a redacted version of the court file minus any commercially sensitive portions. The plaintiff’s counsel produced a version of the pleadings and affidavits with redactions aimed at promoting privacy protection.
The plaintiff’s counsel suggested that it was inappropriate for the defendant to seek to suppress the court file as a whole because the defendant’s director had discussed the dispute with the media, offered a perspective, and allegedly benefited from this opportunity for publicity.
The defendant’s counsel replied that publicity followed since the media requested a comment from the defendant’s director after acquiring access to a released Employment Court judgment in the parties’ proceedings, which included a claim personally filed against the director.
The High Court of New Zealand dismissed the application upon determining that granting the journalist’s application for access to court documents at this point in the proceeding would be premature.
The court acknowledged that this matter engaged the privacy rights of persons other than the defendants. The court then explained its basis for denying the application.
First, the decision stated that the proceeding might not move forward in this court because the defendant had brought a jurisdictional protest. The challenge’s success would mean the plaintiff had improperly commenced this proceeding before this court.
Next, the court ruled that this proceeding was at the stage where the parties typically made allegations via affidavits and other documents, rather than the stage where the parties were responding to the allegations or where the court was weighing these allegations at a substantive hearing.
The court noted that the response of the defendant’s director to the media in connection with the Employment Court judgment should not impact its consideration of the application seeking access to documents.
