Two outlets wanted the affidavits. The court said untested evidence stays sealed
Jarden Management Limited's bid for court orders against two respondents in an employment dispute already failed. Then the media came knocking - and hit the same wall.
The Employment Court of New Zealand on September 21, 2026, turned away applications by two media outlets seeking access to affidavits and evidence filed in proceedings between Jarden and the two respondents.
Rampart News had applied for all pleadings, affidavits, and evidence on the court file. The Australian Financial Review sought the affidavits specifically. Both said they needed the material for fair and accurate reporting and to support the principle of open justice.
The underlying dispute had already run aground. On August 18, 2026, the court heard Jarden's application for delivery up orders against the respondents. During that hearing, both sides agreed the media could access the pleadings. The court released the notice of application - which attached the statement of problem filed in the Employment Relations Authority - along with the notice of opposition and draft statements in reply.
But the court also drew a line around part of the case. Interim non-publication orders went into effect over any submissions or evidence discussing an alleged personal relationship between the two respondents. Even the reasons their counsel gave for seeking those non-publication orders were themselves placed under non-publication.
Six days later, on August 24, 2026, the court dismissed Jarden's entire application. The reason: the court lacked jurisdiction to hear it.
That left the media applications. Jarden told the court it would accept whatever the court decided, but flagged that if access were granted, parts of one affidavit would need redacting under the non-publication order. The respondents did not provide their views.
The court accepted that open justice and fair reporting were proper reasons to seek access. But it stopped there. Citing established case law, the court noted that before a substantive hearing, there is “an element of unfairness on parties in the publication of one side of the story” when allegations have not been tested through evidence and no substantive issues have been determined.
That reasoning carried extra weight here. Jarden's application had been dismissed on jurisdictional grounds alone - no evidence had been tested, and the court's August 24 judgment made no reference to the parties' affidavit evidence at all. Releasing untested affidavits, the court found, would not advance open justice beyond the pleadings already made available.
Both applications for access to affidavit evidence were declined.
There was one small exception. Rampart News, as an outlet based outside New Zealand, was directed to receive the pleadings already released to other media - provided it undertook to comply with court orders on publication and identification.
For HR professionals managing sensitive employment disputes where media interest is high, the case illustrates how employment courts may keep untested evidence under wraps even when the principle of open justice is engaged. The pleadings went public. The affidavits did not.
