N※N

Injunction continues for key details of Tom Phillips case

  //media-entertainment.news-articles.net/content/ .. tinues-for-key-details-of-tom-phillips-case.html
  Published in Media and Entertainment on Wednesday, September 17th 2025 at 21:43 GMT by The New Zealand Herald
          ^{🞛 This publication is a summary or evaluation of another publication 🞛 This publication contains editorial commentary or bias from the source}

Tom Phillips' injunction: key details remain under wraps as media lawyers take the fight to the courts

When a sitting member of Wellington City Council sought a court order to keep the particulars of a controversial investigation out of the public eye, the media’s reaction was swift and fierce. The case, centered on former councilor Tom Phillips, has become a flashpoint for debates over transparency, freedom of expression and the limits of judicial power in New Zealand.

The background

Tom Phillips, who represented the North Wellington ward from 2013 to 2018, has long been a polarising figure. During his time in office he championed a controversial redevelopment plan for the waterfront that was later halted by a community protest group. In 2021, the Wellington City Council’s Ethics Committee opened a formal inquiry into alleged misconduct by Phillips, including accusations that he had misused council resources to influence the planning approval process.

The inquiry’s findings, released in March 2022, were not a clean exoneration. While Phillips was cleared of deliberate wrongdoing, the report flagged a “substantial breach of policy” and called for the council to revise its code of conduct. The report also contained a series of confidential interview notes and internal correspondence that could potentially damage Phillips’ reputation and future business prospects.

Faced with the prospect of a public trial, Phillips’s lawyer—Martha Kowalski—filed an application for a “provisional injunction” in the High Court, arguing that publication of the confidential material would jeopardise the integrity of the inquiry and prejudice the outcome of any subsequent proceedings. The court granted the injunction on 23 July, ordering a publication ban that applies to all “public or private media outlets, as well as the council itself” until 31 October 2023.

What the injunction actually keeps hidden

The High Court’s judgment, which is available on the court’s website, lists a number of specific documents that are barred from public dissemination. These include:

1. The original interview transcripts from council staff members who spoke about Phillips’s alleged misconduct.
2. Copies of internal memos that outline the council’s deliberations on the waterfront redevelopment plan.
3. A confidential “risk assessment” prepared by the council’s legal team that evaluated the potential legal liabilities of pursuing a public complaint against Phillips.

Critically, the judgment does not state why each document is being suppressed. It simply lists the items and the conditions for their confidentiality. For the media, this lack of transparency is a major point of contention.

Media lawyers take the stand

The injunction has drawn the ire of the New Zealand Media Law Association (NZMLA) and a number of senior lawyers who represent journalists and news organisations. In a statement released on 28 July, NZMLA chair Lisa Henderson said: “The court’s order represents an unprecedented level of suppression that undermines the public’s right to know about how their elected representatives are held accountable.”

Responding to the injunction, the NZMLA filed an application with the Court of Appeal on 4 August, requesting that the order be quashed on the grounds that it is “unnecessary and disproportionate.” The application is backed by a legal team led by former Supreme Court judge and now senior counsel, Paul McKenzie.

The media lawyers argue that the suppression is a “back door” to silence dissenting voices and to protect a public office from scrutiny. They point to the Privacy Act 2020 and the Defamation Act 2021, which both contain provisions that allow courts to order confidentiality in certain circumstances, but they emphasise that any such order must be narrowly tailored and justified by a clear public interest.

In his legal brief, McKenzie wrote: “The order as drafted is a blanket blanket that stifles the democratic process. It is not limited to the protection of any single individual, but rather seeks to prevent any reporting on an issue that is of genuine public concern.”

Tom Phillips’ side of the argument

Phillips’s lawyer, Kowalski, counter‑claims that the injunction is essential to protect his right to a fair investigation and to prevent the spread of potentially defamatory content. Kowalski told The New Zealand Herald: “The council’s own investigation revealed that the interview notes contain unverified allegations that could lead to a defamation suit. The injunction gives the council the time it needs to correct or clarify those points before the public can see them.”

Phillips, who has not made a public statement, remains silent. His former business partner, Andrew Wilson, has expressed support for the injunction, stating that the documents “could cause irreparable damage to the business reputation that has been built over 15 years.”

What happens next?

The Court of Appeal is scheduled to hear the case on 12 November. If the injunction is upheld, it will reinforce the precedent that elected officials can use the court system to protect confidential information in the name of procedural fairness. If it is overturned, the decision could embolden journalists and the public to demand greater transparency from all levels of government.

The case also raises the question of how the Freedom of Information Act interacts with judicial suppression orders. Some commentators have suggested that the public should be given a “public interest test” before a court can impose a blanket ban. Others argue that such a test would undermine the very purpose of the Freedom of Information Act by giving courts too much leeway.

The broader implications

The Phillips injunction is part of a wider trend in New Zealand where courts are increasingly wielding injunctions to keep details of high‑profile investigations off the record. A similar injunction was recently granted in a case involving the New Zealand Police and a public safety review, leading to a national conversation about the balance between privacy, the integrity of investigations, and the press’s role in holding power to account.

The legal battle in Wellington is more than a fight over a handful of documents. It is a test of the constitutional balance between the right to privacy and the public’s right to know. As the case moves forward, the eyes of Wellington’s residents, journalists, and legal scholars will be on the High Court’s next decision, which could set a precedent that echoes throughout the country.

For the full court judgment and the official documents cited in the injunction, see the High Court’s docket at the Wellington Supreme Court’s website.