Perpetual Trust Ltd v Financial Markets Authority Coa

• Jurisdiction: New Zealand
• Judge: Glazebrook J
• Judgment Date: 04 July 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] NZCA 298
• Docket Number: CA371/2012
• Court: Court of Appeal
• Date: 04 July 2012

BETWEEN

Perpetual Trust Limited

Appellant

and

Financial Markets Authority

Respondent

and

Trustees Executors Limited

Intervenor

[2012] NZCA 298

Court:

Glazebrook, Ellen France and Stevens JJ

CA371/2012

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

Application to adduce further evidence on appeal — oral judgment — modification of confidentiality orders as set out — refer to HC decision for background — reasons to follow.

Counsel:

J R Billington QC and S E Fitzgerald for Appellant

H B Rennie QC and B J Moffat for Respondent

C M Stevens and F M Russell for Intervenor

• A By consent, we grant the appellant's application to adduce further evidence.

• B We dismiss the appeal, subject to the following.

• C The confidentiality order made by Ellis J on 24 May 2012 is discharged as from midday, Thursday 5 July 2012.

• D In the meantime, the confidentiality order made by Ellis J is varied to allow the appellant to release a statement to unit holders immediately if it wishes to do so. The respondent and the intervenor may comment on that statement publicly, again if they wish to do so.

• E The order made by Heath J on 14 June 2012 that the High Court file not be searched, copied or inspected without leave of a Judge of the High Court, remains intact. The order is extended to this Court's file on this appeal.

• F Heath J's judgment of 26 June 2012 may be published in its entirety on or after midday, Thursday 5 July 2012.

• G This Court's judgment may also be published in its entirety on or after midday, Thursday 5 July 2012.

• H The appellant (personally and not in its capacity as trustee) must pay the respondent and the intervenor costs for a complex appeal on a Band B basis plus usual disbursements. We certify for:

  • (a) an uplift of 50% in terms of r 53C(1)(b) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005; and

  • (b) two counsel.

ORAL JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Glazebrook J)

1 Reasons to follow.

2 We comment at this point that Heath J's decision is an interlocutory decision focused on the issue of confidentiality and that further information may arise in the substantive proceeding and/or in other proceedings that are relevant to the broader matters discussed in his judgment.

3 We also note that it was conceded before us today by the appellant that it has an obligation immediately to release information to unit holders about the fact of Torchlight loan, the total outstanding...