Ruling notes registry’s limited resources to redact confidential information
To strike a balance between the plaintiff’s interests and open justice interests under the Senior Courts (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017, the New Zealand High Court only partly allowed an applicant’s access request over a particular court file.
The case was Yorston v Attorney-General [2026] NZHC 3392. Under the rules, the applicant requested access to documents filed in the Yorston v Attorney-General proceeding.
For the purpose of “ordinary preparation, legal research, and technical analysis regarding administrative law procedures and public interest litigation in New Zealand,” the applicant sought access to:
The applicant cited the following bases for his access request:
The applicant said he was willing to pay the legally required statutory search and inspection fees and to follow the court’s lawful non-publication orders.
The plaintiff, who had privacy interests over the court file’s contents, objected to the applicant’s access request.
The High Court partly granted the application seeking access to the relevant court file. Thus, the court permitted the applicant to view the following documents:
However, the court did not allow the applicant to receive or make a copy of those documents.
According to the court, after the applicant had a chance to look at the documents, he could make another access request citing more specific reasons if he wanted to access the additional material.
The High Court noted that the applicant had the right to access the formal court record, which would include all judicial minutes, orders, directions, and judgments.
Regarding the remainder of the applicant’s access request, the court pointed out that Justice Cull of the High Court had recognised the plaintiff’s extensive privacy interests when granting the applicant’s prior request to access the affidavits, submissions, and memoranda filed by the attorney-general, as long as the applicant would not receive or copy the documents.
The court acknowledged that the registry had limited resources to redact the relevant confidential or private information.
According to the High Court, the applicant’s present request was much more extensive than the prior request, encompassed a significantly broader array of documents, and identified vague reasoning for the request.
Thus, the court granted the current access request only to the same degree and under the same conditions as the prior request.
In a 25 September 2026 judgment, the High Court of New Zealand specified the terms for an interim injunction issued over the data of Health New Zealand and Zenith Technology Corporation Ltd (ZenTech) derived from or obtained in the cyber attack against ZenTech’s servers in or around August 2026.
On 23 July 2026, the High Court acceded to Manage My Health’s request for a permanent injunction regarding patient data stolen during a December 2025 cyber incident.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
