Lobb v Ryan

[2020] NZHC 602

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-1543

[2020] NZHC 602

UNDER

Family Proceedings Act 1980

IN THE MATTER

of a defended application for dissolution of marriage and application for maintenance (relief under section 168)

BETWEEN

STUART JAMES LOBB

Appellant

AND

VERENA COLLEEN RYAN

Respondent

On the papers:	At Auckland
Judgment:	23 March 2020

JUDGMENT OF POWELL J

[Addendum to judgment on Dissolution appeal]

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 March 2020 at 3.30 pm pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Solicitors/Counsel:      P Cobcroft, Auckland

Copy:  Appellant

LOBB v RYAN [2020] NZHC 602 [23 March 2020]

[1]        Following the issue of this  judgment  to  the  parties  on  5  March  2020,1  Ms Cobcroft on behalf of Ms Ryan applied for an order prohibiting the names and identifying particulars of the parties from being published.

[2]        Ms Cobcroft noted that the proceedings were an appeal from a Family Court matter and the proceedings and a related appeal have been the subject of a suppression order made by me in the course of proceedings.

[3]        The application is opposed by Mr Lobb on the grounds that “justice needs to be seen to be done”.

Discussion

[4]        Having considered the request made on behalf of Ms Ryan I can see no basis for suppressing the details of the parties or otherwise taking steps to anonymise the judgment. In particular, there is nothing in the subject matter of the present proceedings (an appeal against dissolution) that would require departure from the principle of open justice, nor is there any obvious statutory or other basis for doing so. While as Ms Cobcroft notes, the judgment deals with an appeal from the Family Court, there des not appear to be any extant suppression order in place from the Family Court. In addition, none of the restrictions and publications set out in ss 11B, 11C or 11D of the Family Proceedings At 1980 are applicable in this case, nor are the parties children named in the judgment.

[5]        In addition, while there were suppression orders made in the course of these proceedings, these were to  prevent  inappropriate  dissemination  of  material  by  Mr Lobb to third parties prior to the conclusion of the proceedings. Apparent breaches of those orders will be dealt with in a further hearing in due course and, as noted at the hearing, restrictions remain on inappropriate dissemination of the material on the Court file. There is however no reason for the present judgment to be so suppressed. On the contrary the judgment sets out in unambiguous terms what the issue was before the Court on this appeal, as well as the outcome in a manner that is hopefully clear and unambiguous.

1      Lobb v Ryan [2020] NZHC 347.

[6]        Ms Ryan’s application is therefore dismissed, and I direct the judgment is to be made available for publication in the current form.

Powell J