INTERIM ORDER SUPPRESSING THE NAMES AND/OR IDENTITIES OF ANYONE NAMED OR IDENTIFIABLE IN ANY OF THE COURT PAPERS FILED IN THIS PROCEEDING. THIS INTERIM ORDER IS SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN PARA [12] OF THIS JUDGMENT.	
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA MĀWHERA ROHE	
CIV-2020-418-12
[2020] NZHC 2781	

BETWEEN	JOHN READY
Plaintiff	
AND	THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST
First Defendant	
AND	FERVENT STEDFAST AND OTHERS
Second Defendants	

Hearing:	22 October 2020
(By way of telephone conference)	
Counsel:	B P Henry and D J Gates for Plaintiff A V Foote for Defendants
A M Watkins for the Potential Beneficiaries of The Christian Church Community Trust	
Judgment:	22 October 2020	

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER
(interim suppression of identities of beneficiaries and associated orders)

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 October 2020 at 1.00pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar 22 October 2020

READY v THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH COMMUNITY TRUST [2020] NZHC 2781 [22 October 2020]

[1]	The plaintiff in this proceeding seeks the replacement of the trustees of the first defendant.

[2]	In a judgment dated 8 October 2020, I made a number of procedural orders in respect of service and representation, albeit those issues are not yet finalised.1

[3]	As recorded in that judgment, the papers filed with the Court include affidavits which allege that inappropriate sexual conduct has taken place at the Gloriavale Community. The evidence presented in one affidavit describes the events alleged to have occurred and in a second affidavit the alleged victims of that conduct are named. An application was made that the second affidavit of Ms Courage, naming the alleged victims,  not  be  served  until  counsel  instructed  for  the  defendants  considers   the ongoing suppression issues. That order was made together with an order that the second affidavit of Ms Courage not be searched.

[4]	By memorandum dated 21  October  2020,  counsel  for  the  plaintiff  raised a further concern that other affidavits filed in this proceeding contain names or materials which could identify those alleged to have been involved in activities of inappropriate sexual conduct, both alleged perpetrators and alleged victims.

[5]	The plaintiff sought an interim order suppressing the names and/or identities of beneficiaries named or identifiable in any of the Court papers. Counsel for the plaintiff submitted:

It is envisaged that this would be an interim order only so that the court can protect their position with the media until all parties are before the court and can be heard.

[6]	I convened a telephone conference on the morning of 22 October 2020 to discuss the application. Ms Foote, counsel for the defendants, joined the conference and I am grateful to her for joining at such short notice, as with all counsel involved.

1	Ready v The Christian Church Community Trust [2020] NZHC 2638.

[7]	I had initial concerns about the interim order sought. The pleadings had been structured so that the names of complainants were ring-fenced in the second affidavit of Ms Courage, referred to at [25] of the judgment of 8 October 2020.2

[8]	In addition, allegations of inappropriate sexual conduct occurring at Gloriavale Community have been in the media for some time.

[9]	The media would also be aware of the issues relating to the reporting of the contents of pleadings which have not been referred to in Court (any privilege that extends to reporting court hearings does not extend to publication of documents filed in court, such as pleadings, unless they have been referred to in open court).3 On my brief review of media articles in respect of Gloriavale, the mainstream media has adopted a responsible approach and not reported the names of alleged victims.

[10]	Mr Watkins, counsel appointed to represent the residents of the Gloriavale Community and other beneficiaries of the Trust, supported the application. He supported Mr Henry’s submission that at this time it was better to err on the side of caution. Ms Foote also supported the application.

[11]	All counsel envisage the interim order sought would be subject to review once issues of service and representation have been resolved.

[12]	Accordingly, and purely on an interim basis, there is an interim order suppressing the names and/or identities of anyone named or identifiable in any of the court papers filed in this proceeding. This interim order is subject to the following condition. To the extent that the names of those involved in this proceeding are already in the public domain, this interim order does not apply to them. For example, the names of the defendants named in this proceeding are already in the public domain by virtue of my judgment of 8 October 2020 having been published. It is simply not possible to identify the names of alleged perpetrators and alleged victims that may already be in the public domain so as to make specific limitations on the interim order,

2	At [25].
3	The publication of reports of pleadings or evidence while proceedings are pending may constituted a contempt of Court: Parker v Parker HC, Auckland CP674/86, 30 July 1986.

but the intent is that where such details have already been published, this interim order does not affect such existing publication.

[13]	For the avoidance of doubt, Mr Henry, counsel for the plaintiff, confirmed the interim order sought did not extend to the fact that the proceedings have been brought, or their nature, or the allegations made – only the name or identity of those named in the papers.

Amended notice to beneficiaries

[14]	In my judgment of 8 October 2020, the wording of a notice proposed to be given to all beneficiaries was approved. An amended notice has been tendered for approval. I record Ms Foote’s instructions that the new notice has already been placed on the noticeboard at Gloriavale and a copy distributed to each of the homes at Gloriavale Community. Therefore, to some extent, events have overtaken that request as the notice has already been circulated.

[15]	I see no reason not to approve the amended notice, and it is approved accordingly.

[16]	I leave open the question of whether the distribution of the newly approved notice will amount to good service. I expressed to counsel my concerns as to how good service on all of the residents at Gloriavale is to be achieved.

[17]	I am grateful to Ms Foote for adopting a constructive approach in respect of ensuring Mr Watkins, counsel appointed to represent the beneficiaries, can have access to those resident at Gloriavale who wish to talk to him. Once Mr Watkins is satisfied the proceedings have been properly brought to the attention of the beneficiaries, he is to confirm this to me by memorandum. Equally, if he considers further assistance of the Court is required in that regard, he is to so advise.

[18]	Mr Henry sought leave to serve the second affidavit of Ms Courage, subject to the restriction set out in [25] of my judgment of 8 October 2020, on Ms Foote and Mr Watkins.

[19]	Ms Foote and Mr Watkins are to file a memorandum for my attention next week (that is the week ending 30 October 2020) in respect of that issue.

[20]	Leave is reserved generally to counsel to apply for any further orders that are required.

Associate Judge Lester

Solicitors:
Shanahans, Auckland
Copy to counsel: B P Henry and D J Gales, Barristers, Auckland

Duncan Cotterill, Christchurch Wynn Williams, Christchurch