Former Cabinet minister Bill Jeffries has lost an appeal in the Supreme Court in his long-running fight not to reveal the source of confidential immigration information.
The information relates to an American couple who were involved in a legal battle against a firm Mr Jeffries was representing as a barrister.
But he is able to make his claim - protecting the informant's name because of litigation privilege - to the Privacy Commissioner, with the court ruling that such privilege can apply to unsolicited information and extend to the identity of an informant.
In 2000, Mr Jeffries represented architectural firm Interact, which was trying to recover unpaid professional fees charged from Marc and Ivy Powell, who had been allowed by the Overseas Investment Commission to buy a farm on D'Urville Island, in the Marlborough Sounds.
In 2003 Mr Jeffries applied to the Immigration Service for official information relating to the Powells' successful application for residency permits.
The Powells suspected that he already had obtained information from either the Immigration or Customs and complained to the Privacy Commissioner.
In 2006 the Privacy Commission gave notice requiring Mr Jeffries to disclose the information and the name of the informant. He applied for judicial review, claiming the notice was invalid on a number of grounds, all of which were rejected by the courts, with the Supreme Court refusing him to leave to appeal to it.
However, it did allow him to appeal over a point he made during argument in the Court of Appeal that the personal information communicated to him was the subject of litigation privilege.
He filed an affidavit saying he had got the information on an unsolicited basis and argued that it was received by him so he could conduct litigation.
The Court of Appeal rejected the claim, saying that unsolicited communications were not within the scope of such privilege, but the Supreme Court today said that decision was premature as any claim of privilege must be referred to the Privacy Commissioner.
The Privacy Act made it clear the commissioner had to determine any claim of privilege after receiving the information required, the court ruled in dismissing his appeal.
