ORDER PROHIBITING SEARCH OF THE COURT FILE WITHOUT FURTHER ORDER OF THE COURT.	
IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE	
CIV-2025-485-000336
[2025] NZHC 1324	

BETWEEN	ATTORNEY-GENERAL
Plaintiff	
AND	RADIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
First Defendant

JOHN GERRITSEN
Second Defendant	

Hearing:	21 May 2025	
Counsel:	A L Martin and K C Millard for Plaintiff No appearance for Defendants	
Judgment:	26 May 2025	

JUDGMENT OF LA HOOD J
(Application for interim injunction)

[1]	In the late afternoon of 21 May 2025, I heard the Attorney-General’s application for an urgent interim injunction restraining Radio New Zealand (RNZ) from publishing or disseminating a document entitled “Report: Budget 25 Initiative Themes” dated 29 April 2025 (the Report) or any part of the Report. The application had been made that afternoon and the order was sought prior to delivery of the Budget the following day.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL v RADIO NEW ZEALAND LTD [2025] NZHC 1324 [26 May 2025]

[2]	I made an oral order granting the injunction with reasons to follow.1

[3]	The application was supported by an affidavit from an Executive Assistant at the Crown Law Office, which set out the following:

(a)	On 21 May 2025 the Solicitor-General was contacted by the press secretary of the Minister of Education by email. The email contained an exchange between the press secretary and John Gerritsen, education respondent for RNZ.

(b)	In the email Mr Gerritsen said that he had sighted a document entitled “Report: Budget 25 Initiative Themes” and setting out amounts said to be set aside in the Budget for various matters. The email concluded with a request for the Minister to comment.

(c)	The Education Minister’s press secretary replied by email at 1.42 pm on 21 May 2025, which stated:

I’m putting you on notice that you have sighted improperly released budget sensitive information. The information also contains commercially sensitive information that would impede the Government’s ability to engage effectively in collective bargaining. It is not in the public interest to be released.

(d)	Counsel for the Attorney-General made contact with RNZ’s usual counsel, Robert Stewart KC, to alert him to the issue and the possibility of an application for an  interim  injunction.  A text  message  from Mr Stewart to counsel for the Attorney-General was exhibited to the Attorney-General’s affidavit. It relevantly states:

My instructions are that RNZ will comply with any court order restraining it from publishing confidential and commercially sensitive budget information, but is not in a position to provide any other assurances at this time.

1	Attorney-General v Radio New Zealand Ltd HC Wellington CIV-2025-485-000336, 21 May 2025.

If the Minister moves to injunct RNZ this afternoon, as discussed, I am unavailable to appear remotely or by telephone for the rest of the time.

At the hearing, it was explained to me that Mr Stewart’s unavailability was due to being on a flight.

[4]	The grounds on which the interim injunction was sought were:

(a)	The Report is confidential and Budget sensitive and contains commercially sensitive information that would prejudice the Government’s ability to engage effectively in collective bargaining.

(b)	The defendants are aware that the Report was prepared for Budget purposes and are on notice of its confidential nature. It can only have come into the defendants’ hands through a breach of confidence by a person(s) unknown to the plaintiff.

(c)	The defendants are aware the information is confidential and that the plaintiff has asserted a right of confidentiality in the information.

(d)	Publication or dissemination of the Report or information in it will further breach confidence. The dissemination that has already occurred has breached the plaintiff’s rights of confidence in respect of the information, and any further publication will involve further such breaches.

(e)	Orders were necessary to prevent the further breach of confidence.

(f)	The defendants had said on 21 May 2025 that they will comply with any court order restraining them from publishing confidential and commercially sensitive Budget information.

(g)	There is a serious question to be tried.

(h)	Service would cause undue delay and serious detriment to the plaintiff and interests of the New Zealand public.

[5]	I was satisfied that it was appropriate to grant the order on a straightforward application of the relevant principles for the following reasons.

[6]	First, I was satisfied that there was a serious question to be tried regarding whether publication or dissemination of the information would be a breach of confidence. I had no reason to doubt the Attorney-General’s position that a particular portion of the Report quoted in Mr Gerritsen’s email would prejudice the Government’s ability to engage effectively in collective bargaining. Likewise, there was no basis to question the Attorney-General’s evidence that the Report contained confidential and Budget sensitive information. There was therefore a serious question to be tried as to whether publication and further dissemination of the Report would be in breach of confidence.

[7]	Second, the balance of convenience and overall justice clearly supported urgently granting the injunction. Clearly, it would not be in the public interest for commercially sensitive information that could damage the Government’s ability to engage effectively in collective bargaining to be published or disseminated; or for confidential and Budget sensitive information to be published or disseminated before the Budget is delivered. Any potential prejudice to RNZ in being restrained from publishing the information was clearly outweighed by the prejudice to the Government and the public interest if publication occurred. Further, RNZ said it would comply with any court order restraining it from publishing confidential and commercially sensitive Budget information.

[8]	I therefore made the following orders:

(a)	The defendants are restrained from publishing or disseminating themselves or by their agents any information contained in the “Report: Budget 25 Initiative Themes”.

(b)	The orders remain in effect until further order of the Court.

(c)	The Court file in this proceeding is not to be searched by any person without further order of the Court.

(d)	For the avoidance of doubt, nothing in these orders restrains in any way any journalist from reporting on the Budget once delivered.

(e)	The parties are to file a joint memorandum of counsel by 28 May 2025 addressing any further steps required in the proceeding, including the orders sought by the Attorney-General at [1.2]  of  the  application (for RNZ to return the Report).

(f)	I give the parties leave to apply for any further directions.

[9]	Costs are reserved.

La Hood J

Solicitors:
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Plaintiff