C LEISHMAN v R H LEVIE and HOME OWNERS AND BUYERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 2122

C LEISHMAN v R H LEVIE and HOME OWNERS AND BUYERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 2122

The limited interrogatories 5(c),(e) and (f) directed to eight identified bodies corporate are relevant because answers may tend to prove a pattern of similar publications by the defendants indicative of ill will and non-genuine opinion, are not impermissible fishing given the evidential material supplied, and...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZAR 1276
Parties
Plaintiff: Craig Leishman; First Defendant: Roger Henry Levie; Second Defendant: Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand Incorporated
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application to Answer Interrogatories Under R 8.38 High Court Rules
Outcome
Application granted in part; defendants ordered to answer specified interrogatories and verify answers
Legal Topics
Interrogatories, Qualified Privilege, Honest Opinion, Malice/ill Will, Injunction, Damages
Defamation Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Interrogatories Qualified Privilege Honest Opinion Malice/ill Will +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Craig Leishman

Plaintiff

Roger Henry Levie

First Defendant

Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand Incorporated

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Application to Answer Interrogatories Under R 8.38 High Court Rules

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proposed interrogatories (5(c),(e),(f)) are relevant to issues of ill will/malice and available defences
  2. 2 Whether the interrogatories are impermissible fishing
  3. 3 Whether post-publication statements and subsequent publications are admissible to prove malice

Ratio Decidendi

The limited interrogatories 5(c),(e) and (f) directed to eight identified bodies corporate are relevant because answers may tend to prove a pattern of similar publications by the defendants indicative of ill will and non-genuine opinion, are not impermissible fishing given the evidential material supplied, and confidentiality/oppression objections do not outweigh the plaintiff's need; accordingly the defendants must answer and verify by affidavit within specified time.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; defendants ordered to answer specified interrogatories and verify answers

Orders

  • Defendants to answer interrogatories 5(c), 5(e) and 5(f) as set out in the plaintiff's notice to answer interrogatories dated 28 May 2018 and verify their answers by affidavit by Wednesday 29 August 2018
  • Amend table 1 of schedule 1 to record that the Body Corporate at 130 Stancombe Road is BC 371455 not BC 372942