BEFORE THE ENVIRONMENT COURT
I MUA I TE KOOTI TAIAO O AOTEAROA
Decision No. [2019] NZEnvC
IN THE MATTER

l'D9-

of an application for access to Court
documents by non-parties to this
proceeding

IN RELATION TO

an application under s 311 of the Resource
Management Act 1991 (the Act)

BETWEEN

TON EA INVESTMENTS (NZ) LIMITED AND
STUDIO NEW ZEALAND LIMITED
(ENV-2019-AKL-000042)
Applicants

AND

AUCKLAND COUNCIL
Respondent

Court:

Environment Judge M Harland on the papers

Submissions:

A Braggins & J Parker for Alpha Dairy NZ Limited
G Shim and L S Buen (applicants for access to Court documents)
J Brabant for Tonea Investments (NZ) Limited & Studio New Zealand
D Hartley and W Randal for Auckland Council

Date of Decision:

14 June 2019

Date of Issue:

14 June 2019

INTERIM DECISION OF THE ENVIRONMENT COURT ON APPLICATION FOR
ACCESS TO COURT DOCUMENTS BY NON-PARTIES

 2

Introduction

[1]

This interim decision relates to an application by Alpha Dairy NZ Limited, G Shim

and L S Buen (collectively, Alpha) to access certain documents held on the Court file
(now closed) 1 in relation to the above proceeding to which Alpha was not a party. 2
Background

[2]

The proceeding to which the file relates was an application made by Tonea

Investments (NZ) Limited and Studio New Zealand Limited (collectively Tonea) on 13
March 2019 for a declaration that the creation/manufacture of motion pictures to be
conducted at 296 Porchester Road, Takanini (the Porchester Road site) was an
industrial activity under the Auckland Unitary Plan (AUP) . Tonea also applied for what it
called a confidentiality order in relation to the fact of and contents of the application for
reasons of commercial sensitivity.
[3]

Adopting the terminology used by the Tonea, an interim confidentiality order was

made by Principal Environment Judge Newhook on 15 March 2019 restricting the
knowledge of the existence of the proceedings as well as access to the application
documents to certain people (and associated orders) until further order of the Court.
[4]

On 28 March 2019, Tonea applied to amend the interim confidentiality order to

extend it to conducting the hearing of the application with the public excluded and adding
certain other people to the list of those authorised to know of the application and have
access to the application documents. On 29 March 2019 Principal Environment Judge
Newhook granted this application and the second confidentiality order was made.
[5]

A hearing of the application for declaration took place on 3 April 2019. Tonea and

the Council were the only parties to it. A decision granting the application for declaration
in a modified form was made by the Court on 5 April 2019 (the decision). 3 In the decision
the Court noted in paragraph [2] :
An application for confidentiality for reasons of commercial sensitivity was made by Tonea and
granted by Judge Newhook, that extended to the conducting of the hearing with public excluded.
We have made minor redactions of information and personnel in this decision in consequence, but

ENV-2019-AKL-000042 Tonea Investments (NZ) Limited and Studio New Zealand Limited v Auckland
Council.
2 The application has been incorporated in a memorandum of counsel for Alpha. It would have been
preferable for a separate application to have been made rather than incorporating it in the memorandum,
however nothing turns on this .
3 Tonea Investments (NZ)Limited v Auckland Council (2019] NZEnvC 061.
1

 3

with the decision now issuing , most of the purpose of the orders is now spent.

Alpha's application for access to Court documents

[6]

Alpha was not notified of the declaration application , and like all members of the

public was excluded from participating in the proceedings. After becoming aware of the
declaration decision, on 13 May 2019 Alpha requested access to the documents listed
below, which it said it had requested from the parties, but which they had declined to
provide .
[7]

Alpha sought access to the following documents:
a.

In relation to the application for confidentiality referred to at paragraph [2] of the Decision :
i.

The application for confidentiality and any supporting affidavits, memoranda and
other material;

ii .

Any documents or other information provided to the Court regarding Alpha's
judicial review proceedings;

iii.

Any notice of opposition or response from the Council;

iv.

Any written legal submissions from either party regarding the application; and

v.

Any directions, notices or decisions by the Court.

b. In relation to the application for declaration (assuming that no planning affidavits were
provided to the Court) :

[8]

i.

The application for declaration ;

ii .

Any material relating to the application documents for Tonea's film studio
resource consent;

iii .

Any notice of opposition or response from Auckland Council;

iv.

Legal submissions from both parties; and

v.

Any documents or other information provided to the Court regarding Alpha's
judicial review proceedings.

The above documents were sought pursuant to paragraph 8.2 of the Environment

Court Practice Note 2014 and Rule 3.9 of the District Court Rules 2014, however
unfortunately the Practice Note has not been updated to refer to the correct rules; namely
the District Court (Access to Documents) Rules 2017. Counsel did however refer to these
rules when it was stated that:
Pursuant to Rule 11 (2)(d) of the District Court (Access to Documents) Rules 2017, Alpha states that
it has no interest in any genuinely commercially sensitive documents and is willing to view the Court
record in a redacted form, or subject to any other reasonable condition that the Court considers
appropriate.

 4
[9]

I directed 4 that counsel for Alpha , Tonea and the Council provide updated

submissions addressing the correct rules that apply given that different parts of the rules
and therefore considerations apply to different documents depending on whether they
are part of the formal court record and therefore available as of right or not.
[10]

Counsel filed updated memoranda on 31 May 2019 and 5 June 2019. As the

Council abides the Courts decision in all respects, the key issues to be determined relate
to counsel for Alpha's and Tonea's submissions.
Alpha's reasons for seeking access to the Court file

[11]

Alpha Dairy NZ Limited is a company intending to develop and carry on a dairy

milk business at 3 Popes Road, Takanini.

G Shim and L S Buen are the ultimate

shareholders of Alpha Dairy NZ Limited . They are also the registered proprietors of the
land at 3 Popes Road, which is adjacent to the property owned by Tonea.
[12]

Counsel for Alpha's first memorandum seeking access to documents on the Court

file outlined that Alpha is the applicant in judicial review proceedings currently before the
High Court. These proceedings challenge the Council's decision to process a resource
consent application by Tonea to allow the construction and operation of a film studio in
the Light Industry Zone on the Porchester Road site on a non-notified basis.
[13]

The concerns raised by Alpha in the judicial review proceeding include the issue

of reverse sensitivity, because it contends that the resource consent application did not
contain any assessment of the level of sensitivity of the proposed activity in relation to
the vibration, air quality (odour and dust), and the moderate level of amenity that it
submits the Light Industry Zone provides for.
[14]

A copy of Alpha's First Amended Statement of Claim seeking judicial review and

three affidavits supporting it were attached to the initial memorandum. 5 These
proceedings were filed in the High Court on 2 November 2018; namely before Tonea's
application for declaration was made to the Environment Court.
[15]

The first memorandum further outlined that Alpha had been advised by counsel

for Tonea, 6 that in light of the Environment Court's declaration:
(a)

the foundation of the judicial review proceedings has been rendered

 5

redundant; and
(b)

continuing to pursue the judicial review proceedings would be an abuse
of process.

[16]

Counsel for Alpha submitted that it is necessary for it to access documents on the

Environment Court file and specifically the documents listed above:
... in order to properly advise Alpha, who has a bona fide interest in the following matters:
a.

Why Alpha was excluded from the declaration proceedings ;

b.

The extent to which the Court was made aware of the judicial review proceedings and its
wider context;

c.

The Court's rationale for making the declaration , and its relevance to the judicial review
proceedings;

d.

Why the Court did not consider that provisions of the AUP RPS and the objectives and
policies of the Light Industry Zone relating to reverse sensitivity and noise sensitivity to
merit particular discussion;

e.

The extent to which the Court was made aware of the reverse sensitivity and noise
sensitivity issues.

[17]

In his second memorandum, counsel for Alpha advised that since his first

memorandum seeking access to Court documents in this proceeding, Tonea has
submitted a new application to the Council dated 16 May 2019 for resource consent to
construct and operate a film studio on the Porchester Road site. This application has
been made relying on the Environment Court's declaration that film production is a
permitted activity in the industrial zones .
[18]

Counsel for Alpha submits that the new application for resource consent has

potentially significant implications in relation to Alpha's judicial review proceedings and
he submitted that Alpha's request for access to the documents in this proceeding should
be considered in light of this new information.
[19]

Counsel for Alpha contends that the above matters are likely to be relevant to the

advice it gives Alpha about the steps it could take in relation to the decision in this
proceeding , which may include:

 6

(a)

judicially reviewing the Environment Court decision ;

(b)

requesting a rehearing of the Environment Court proceedings, in which
Alpha is accorded the opportunity to participate; and/or

(c)

pursuing its existing judicial review application in its current or a modified
form .

[20]

The judicial review proceedings have a chambers conference allocated for 14

June 2019 and the substantive hearing has been allocated for 25 July 2019.
Response to the request by Tonea

[21]

On 17 May 2019, counsel for Tonea filed a memorandum in response to Alpha 's

initial request for access to Court documents. Counsel advised that Tonea would abide
the decision of the Court about whether Alpha should be granted access to the Court file ,
"subject to the protection of commercially sensitive information ," 7 because Tonea
"considers that certain documents on the Court file , if they are to be released, will require
redaction ." 8 No specific details were however provided about what Tonea considered
should be released or redacted in light of its statement that some of was likely to be
commercially sensitive.
[22]

Accordingly, the identification of which documents would be released , the extent

of redaction that would need to be made to those documents, and the terms and
conditions on which they should be released to be resolved . The Court's directions that
the parties file further submissions addressing these issues hoped to resolve these
matters.9
[23]

Counsel for Tonea filed a second memorandum dated 5 June 2019. It was helpful

to the extent that it outlined the following :
(a)

a new application for resource consent has been lodged with counsel
which relies on the Courts declaration about the activity status of the
creation/manufacture of motion pictures;

(b)

7
8
9

Tonea has no objection to Alpha being provided with copies of the two

At paragraph [5] .
At paragraph [6].
Minute 28 May 201 9, paragraph [8](6).

 7

confidentiality orders made by the Court;
(c)

Tonea will abide the Court's decision as to access to documents "subject
to the protection of commercially sensitive information" ;

(d)

Tonea does not agree that the declaration has a direct effect on other
proceedings , although accepts there may be consequential implications.

[24]

Apart from making a very general submission that redacted copies of the affidavits

of witnesses A and B should be provided to counsel for Alpha so that he can properly
understand the context of the declaration, the second memorandum by counsel for Ton ea
dated 5 June 2019 does not shed any further light on what parts of the affidavits it
considers should be redacted, specifically why that is the case and why the affidavits
cannot be provided to anyone apart from counsel for Alpha. Neither is there any basis
provided to support the contention that the deponents of the affidavits should not be
named . No assistance was provided about what other parts of the formal Court record
or the Court file (as these terms are defined in Rule 4) should be provided and if so
redacted.
The issues

[25]

The issues for me to determine are whether:
(a)

Alpha should be granted access to the Court documents it has sought
access to ; and ifso

(b)

what conditions (if any) should attach to the release of the documents.

The District Court (Access to Court Documents) Rules 2017

[26]

Counsel for Alpha submitted that, together with the Court's Practice Note, Rules

3.8(1)(a) and 3.9 of the District Court Rules 2014 (OCR) are relevant to its request for
access to the documents. However, Part 3 of the OCR Rules, including 3.8 and 3.9 have
been revoked. The relevant rules are now contained in the District Court (Access to
Court Documents) Rules 2017 and they apply to the Environment Court. 10

 8

[27]

I now highlight the rules that I consider apply to this application .

[28]

Rule 8(1) provides a general right to any member of the public to access "the

formal court record. " The "formal court record " is defined in Rule 4 as :
formal court record means any of the following kept in the registry of the court:

(a) a register or an index:
(b) a published list that gives notice of a hearing :
(c) a document that(i) may be accessed under an enactment other than these rules ; or
(ii) constitutes notice of its contents to the public:
(d) a judgment, an order, or a minute of the court, including any record of the reasons given by a
judicial officer:
(e) the permanent court record under Part 7 of the Criminal Procedure Rules 2012

This is different from the "court file" which is also defined in Rule 4 as:
court file means a collection of documents in the custody or control of the court that relate to a civil

proceeding or a criminal proceeding (including an interlocutory application associated with the
proceeding) or an appeal

"Document" is also defined as follows :
document,-

(a) in relation to a civil proceeding , (i) means any written material in the custody or control of the court that relates to the
proceeding (including any interlocutory application associated with the proceeding),
whether or not kept on a court file ; and
(ii) includes documentary exhibits, video recordings , records in electronic form , films ,
photographs, and images in electronic form; and
(b) in relation to a criminal proceeding , has the same meaning as in section 5 of the Criminal
Procedure Act 2011; and
(c) in relation to an appeal, means a document in any form that is in the custody or control of the
court and that relates to the appeal , whether or not the document is on a court file; but
(d) in relation to a civil proceeding, a criminal proceeding , or an appeal, does not include(i) notes made by or for a judicial officer for his or her personal use; or
(ii) any material that relates to the administration of the court

[29]

Rule 8(3) however provides a limit to the general right set out in Rule 8(1) as

follows :
(3) Without limiting rule 6(a) , a person may access the following documents only if a Judge permits
the person to do so :
(a) any document received, or any record of anything said , in a proceeding while members of the

 9

public are excluded from the proceeding by an enactment or by an order of the court.

[30]

Rule 11 applies where documents sought to be accessed are not covered by the

general right (relevantly here) provided for in Rule 8. 11 The process to be followed is
outlined in Rules 11 (2)-(8), which provides:
(2) A person may ask to access any document by providing the Registrar of the relevant court
registry with a letter, an email , or any other written form of request that(a) identifies the person and gives the person's address; and
(b) sets out sufficient particulars of the document to enable the Registrar to identify it; and
(c) gives reasons for asking to access the document, which must set out the purpose for which the
access is sought; and
(d) sets out any conditions of the right of access that the person proposes as conditions that he or
she would be prepared to meet were a Judge to impose those conditions (for example, conditions
that prevent or restrict the person from disclosing the document or contents of the document, or
conditions that enable the person to view but not copy the document).
(3) The Registrar must promptly give a copy of the request to the parties to the relevant proceeding
or appeal, or to their lawyers, by hand or electronically.
(4) A Judge may dispense with service under subclause (3) if it would be impractical to require
notice to be served .
(5) A party who receives a copy of a request and who wants to object to it must give written notice
of the objection to the Registrar, setting out the grounds on which the party objects, (a) before 3 pm on the third working day after the day on which the copy is received; or
(b) if the copy is received on a day on which a hearing relating to the document is proceeding,
before 3 pm on the first working day after the day on which the copy is received.
(6) For the purposes of subclause (5), a person is deemed to receive a copy of a request on the
day on which it is sent electronically or handed to the person.
(7) A Judge may(a) grant a request for access under this rule in whole or in part(i) without conditions; or
(ii) subject to any conditions that the Judge thinks appropriate; or
(b) refuse the request; or
(c) refer the request to a Registrar for determination by that Registrar.
(8) Without limiting the powers in subclause (6), the Judge may refuse a request for access under
this rule solely for the reason that the request does not comply with subclause (2)(a), (b), (c), or (d).

[31]

If Rule 11 is engaged, the matters a judge must consider in determining the

request are outlined in Rule 12 as follows :
12 Matters to be considered
In determining a request for access under rule 11, the Judge must consider the nature of, and the
reasons given for, the request and take into account each of the following matters that is relevant
to the request or any objection to the request:
(a) the orderly and fair administration of justice:
(b) the right of a defendant in a criminal proceeding to a fair trial :
(c) the right to bring and defend civil proceedings without the disclosure of any more information
about the private lives of individuals, or matters that are commercially sensitive, than is necessary
to satisfy the principle of open justice:
(d) the protection of other confidentiality and privacy interests (including those of children and other
vulnerable members of the community) and any privilege held by, or available to, any person :
(e) the principle of open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting of, and
comment on, court hearings and decisions) :
(f) the freedom to seek, receive, and impart information:
(g) whether a document to which the request relates is subject to any restriction under rule 7:
(h) any other matter that the Judge thinks appropriate .

These matters are broadly similar

 10
to the matters set out in Rule 12 above, save that relevant to this case , Rule 12 (c) is
new.
[33]

In applying Rule 12, a Judge must have regard to certain matters including the

protection of confidentiality and privacy interests depending on whether the request is
made before, during or after the substantive hearing. As the substantive hearing has
been determined in this case, Rule 13(c) is relevant, but a comparison with the
subsections (a) and (b) is also instructive. Rule 13 provides:
13 Approach to balancing matters considered

In applying rule 12, the Judge must have regard to the following:
(a) before the substantive hearing, the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests and the
orderly and fair administration of justice may require that access to documents be limited:
(b) during the substantive hearing , open justice has(i) greater weight than at other stages of the proceeding ; and
(ii) greater weight in relation to documents relied on in the hearing than other documents :
(c) after the substantive hearing, (i) open justice has greater weight in relation to documents that have been relied on in a
determination than other documents; but
(ii) the protection of confidentiality and privacy interests has greater weight than would be the case
during the substantive hearing.

[34]

Because of the above provisions I must determine in relation to the documents

sought whether Alpha has a general right to them under Rule 8 and if it does not, whether
it nonetheless can have access to them under Rule 11 , considering the relevant matters
referred to in Rules 12 and 13.
Issue 1: Should Alpha have access to the documents on the Court file it has
sought?
Access to the formal court record - Rule 8.

[35]

Alpha is entitled as of right under Rule 8(1) to access the "formal court record".

The "formal court record" means the documents that are set out in the definition of it in
Rule 4. Relevant to this decision are the documents outlined in (d). This includes the two
confidentiality orders and any other documents referred to in that definition . These
documents can be made available for Alpha to view straight away.
Access to other documents - Rule 11

[36]

Rule 11 covers documents relating to a proceeding that Alpha is not

entitled to access under Rule 8. As outlined above, "document" is also defined in Rule
4. Relevant to this decision are (a) and (d) . This would include the affidavits that Tonea
has referred to but also any other documents as defined in Rule 4. Rule 4(a)(i) refers to

 11
written material in the custody or control of the Court whether or not kept on a Court file.
"Court file" is also defined in Rule 4.
[37]

In deciding whether Alpha should have access to such documents, I need to

consider the matters outlined in Rules 12 and 13. In my view, this would include the
documents Alpha has requested as outlined in paragraph 4.1 of its supplementary
submissions dated 31 May 2019.
[38]

In accordance with Rule 12, I consider the matters that are relevant to the request

and Alpha's submissions on each .
The orderly and fair administration of justice
[39]

Alpha submitted that orderly and fair administration of justice is generally invoked

with regard to potential prejudice to a decision by undue media attention, 12 which is not
at issue in this case - Alpha has not contacted the media in this matter and states that it
has no intention of doing so.
The right to bring and defend civil proceedings without the disclosure of any more
information about the private lives of individuals, or matters that are commercially
sensitive, than is necessary to satisfy the principle of open justice:
[40]

Alpha submitted that while it understands that some information on the Court's

file may be commercially sensitive, it notes that:
(a)

Alpha is not in the business of making motion pictures and is not a
commercial competitor with Tonea ; and

(b)

Alpha is willing for any genuinely commercially sensitive material to be
redacted, or subject to conditions preventing wider dissemination or to any
other reasonable condition that the Court considers appropriate.

(c)

The Environment Court considered that most of the purpose of the
Confidentiality Order had expired with the decision now issuing ;

(d)

12

There are no further commercial sensitivity or privacy issues that justify

See for example Molloy Christie v Molloy [2017] NZHC 508; Housing New Zealand Corporation v Sharp
Electrical Services Limited [2015] NZHC 433; Erceg v Erceg [2014] NZHC 2107.

 12
restrictions on the principle of open justice.
[41]

I agree that the matters noted by Alpha mean that the documents it seeks can be

made available subject to redaction of any genuinely commercially sensitive material
which I address below.
The protection of other confidentiality and privacy interests (including those of children
and other vulnerable members of the community) and any privilege held by, or available
to, any person

[42]

Alpha submitted that there are no issues of privacy, privilege or vulnerability that

arise. I agree.
The principle of open justice (including the encouragement of fair and accurate reporting
of, and comment on, court hearings and decisions)

[43]

Alpha submitted that in the interests of open justice, it is appropriate that Alpha

be given the opportunity to fully appreciate the information on and circumstances in which
the declaration was made. I agree with this submission especially as Tonea has now
conceded that its affidavits are relevant to Alpha properly understanding the context of
the declaration .
The freedom to seek, receive, and impart information

[44]

Alpha submitted that the freedom to seek information is core to the function or our

justice system and democracy, recognised by its codification in the New Zealand Bill of
Rights Act 1990.13 I agree.
Any other matter that the Judge thinks appropriate

[45]

Alpha submitted that it is just that the Court consider the following additional

matters:
(a)

Alpha's ongoing litigation with Tonea and the Council regarding this same
general matter, which has now been affected by a decision wh ich Alpha
was not given notice of, let alone the opportunity to participate in; and

(b)

13

The principle of natural justice, audi alteram partem, regarding which

Section 14 Bill of Rights Act 1991 .

 13

Judicial Review A New Zealand Perspective states:
Giving a person notice that a decision affecting him or her is being considered , is the
absolute minimum necessary for a fair hearing .

(c)

Tonea is now seeking to rely on the declaration to seek a fresh resource
consent and to exclude any form of notification .

[46]

I agree that these are appropriate matters to take into account in this case .

[47]

In applying the matters outlined in Rule 12, I must have regard to the matters in

Rule 13. Of relevance is Rule 13(c). I agree that the principle of open justice constitutes
a legal basis for Alpha's request. I also take into account that Alpha is not seeking access
to any information that is commercially sensitive and is prepared to abide by conditions
which ensure that genuinely commercially sensitive material is protected . How that
information is protected is more likely to involve preventing it from being published rather
than preventing representatives from Alpha (counsel and perhaps others) from viewing
it.
[48]

Having considered Alpha's application, I am prepared to grant Alpha's application

to access the documents on the Court file set out in para [7] above.

Alpha has

demonstrated that it has a need to access documents on the Court file to assess how
relevant they are to its judicial review proceeding and any other legal proceedings relating
to the declaration proceedings that may be open to it. There is also now the issue of the
new resource consent application . I am satisfied that allowing Alpha access to the
documents on the Court file is in the interests of the orderly and fair administration of
justice (Rule 12(a)) and is in accordance with the principle of open justice (Rule 12(e)).
[49]

Further I record the Court's observation in paragraph [2] of the declaration

decision referred to above that "most of the purpose of the [confidentiality] is now spent. "
[50]

Accordingly, I grant Alpha 's application for access to the documents on the Court

file .

Issue 2: What are the conditions (if any) that should attach to Alpha's access to
the documents?

[51]

I bear in mind that Alpha 's access to the documents must be balanced against

the protection of confidentiality interests (Rule12(d)) and any genuinely commercially
sensitive information (Rule 12(c)) contained in the documents on the Court file . Alpha in

 14
its reply has intimated its understanding that this aspect is important and agrees to
respect any commercially sensitive information . Counsel for Tonea has agreed that
Alpha should have access to the affidavits it filed in support of its application for
declaration but for them to be "suitably redacted ," however was not specific about what
parts of the affidavits should be redacted , nor was it explained why they are in part or in
whole "commercially sensitive." It is not appropriate for the Court to be required to
undertake that task without having a clear factual basis to do so. Accordingly, the
suggested process outlines in paragraph 6.5 in counsel for Alpha's second memorandum
is not adopted.
[52]

Accordingly, although access to documents on the Court file is granted, this

access is conditional on counsel for Tonea first having the opportunity to outline what
parts of the documents are genuinely commercially sensitive and should be redacted.
Further counsel fo r Tonea should be specific about whether it is access to the documents
(and by whom on behalf of Alpha) that is the issue, or whether it is the dissemination of
the information in the documents that it considers should be redacted that is the issue. If
it is the latter, then Tonea may be prepared to allow representatives of Alpha to view the
documents subject to an order preventing publication of them without either redaction
agreed between them or further order of the Court.
[53]

If Tonea continues to seek redaction of the documents, its proposed redactions

should be provided to the Court. The proposed redactions will then be reviewed by the
Court.

If there is an issue about whether the proposed redactions are genuinely

commercially sensitive, counsel for Alpha may need to participate at this point.
Directions

[54]

I make the following directions:
(a)

Access to the documents on the Court file is granted on a conditional
basis, subject to the following directions.

(b)

Counsel for Tonea is to arrange a time to view the Court file with the
Auckland Registry of the Environment Court by 5pm on 19 June 2019 .

(c)

After reviewing the Court file , if Tonea wishes certain documents to be
redacted , it is to supply the Court with a copy of redacted versions of the
documents that are identified as being commercially sensitive to it by 5pm
on 25 June 2019 and it is to outline the reasons why it considers the

 15

specific redactions to be necessary.
(d)

Following redaction by counsel for Tonea, the Court will review those
documents and determine if the redactions are appropriate.

(e)

If the redactions are considered appropriate the Auckland Registry will
then arrange a date and time for counsel for Alpha to view the redacted
version of the documents held on the Court file, otherwise there may need
to be argument about the issue.

M Harland
Environment Judge