HOTCHIN V SHEPPARD HC AK CIV-2011-404-7120

HOTCHIN V SHEPPARD HC AK CIV-2011-404-7120

The strike out application was dismissed: the pleaded specific instances of past share‑trading misconduct under s30 were potentially relevant to the plaintiffs' reputation in the same societal sector (business integrity) and could not be excluded on summary application given their possible probative value and the time lapse not being fatal. An order for security for costs was made for NZD 100,000 payable in two staged instalments (half by end January 2013 and balance by end May 2013). Costs of the security application lie where they fall.

Citation
openlaw-1ec5bbbe_7fb6_4c9d_8da9_6df6b61171dd.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Mark Stephen Hotchin; Second Plaintiff: Eric John Watson; First Defendant: Bruce Sheppard; Second Defendant: The New Zealand Shareholders Association Incorporated
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out Application Under S30 and Security for Costs)
Outcome
Plaintiffs' strike out application dismissed; security for costs order granted; costs of the application awarded to lie where they fall.
Legal Topics
Section 30 Defamation Act 1992 (mitigation by Prior Misconduct), Strike Out, Security for Costs, Honest Opinion Defence (s10), Qualified Privilege, Damages Assessment, Section 43 Defamation Act 1992 (grossly Excessive Damages)
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Section 30 Defamation Act 1992 (mitigation by Prior Misconduct) Strike Out Security for Costs Honest Opinion Defence (s10) Qualified Privilege +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mark Stephen Hotchin

First Plaintiff

Eric John Watson

Second Plaintiff

Bruce Sheppard

First Defendant

The New Zealand Shareholders Association Incorporated

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out Application Under S30 and Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether particulars pleaded under s30 disclose matters relevant to the sector of reputation at issue
  2. 2 Whether pleadings identifying past share‑trading misconduct should be struck out as irrelevant or prejudicial
  3. 3 Whether the time lapse renders past misconduct irrelevant to current reputation

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out application was dismissed: the pleaded specific instances of past share‑trading misconduct under s30 were potentially relevant to the plaintiffs' reputation in the same societal sector (business integrity) and could not be excluded on summary application given their possible probative value and the time lapse not being fatal. An order for security for costs was made for NZD 100,000 payable in two staged instalments (half by end January 2013 and balance by end May 2013). Costs of the security application lie where they fall.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' strike out application dismissed; security for costs order granted; costs of the application awarded to lie where they fall.

Orders

  • Strike out application dismissed in relation to paragraphs 76(a)–(d) pleaded by first defendant under s30
  • Security for costs ordered in the sum of NZD 100000 to be paid in two instalments: NZD 50000 by 31 January 2013 and NZD 50000 by 31 May 2013