CROSSFIT INC v EXERCISE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1028

CROSSFIT INC v EXERCISE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1028

The Court struck out pleaded universal meanings that could not reasonably be read as referring to all CrossFit trainers (paragraphs 25(a) and 25(b) and paragraph 33 meanings) but held the pleaded meaning that CrossFit training carries greater risk of causing incontinence (paragraph 25(c)) survived strike out. The s 23 Fair Trading Act coercion claim and the ss 9 and 11 claims were held to be reasonably arguable; s 15 protects publishers/broadcasting bodies rather than third-party interviewees; plaintiff must particularise and quantify claimed damages and file a further amended statement of claim within 40 working days; costs reserved.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 1028
Parties
Plaintiff: CROSSFIT INC; First Defendant: EXERCISE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED; Second Defendant: R G BEDDIE; Third Defendant: INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF REGISTERS FOR EXERCISE PROFESSIONALS LIMITED
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
18 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation; Injurious Falsehood; Fair Trading Act Claims / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Particulars)
Outcome
Defendants' strike out applications partly allowed and partly dismissed; orders made striking out certain pleaded meanings, dismissing other strike out limbs, and requiring further particulars
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meaning Analysis, Strike Out Under High Court Rule 15.1, Interpretation of S 15 Fair Trading Act, Coercion and Harassment Under S 23 Fair Trading Act, Particulars and Quantification of Damages
Defamation Consumer Law / Fair Trading Act Civil Procedure Defamatory Meaning Analysis Strike Out Under High Court Rule 15.1 Interpretation of S 15 Fair Trading Act Coercion and Harassment Under S 23 Fair Trading Act Particulars and Quantification of Damages

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

CROSSFIT INC

Plaintiff

EXERCISE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED

First Defendant

R G BEDDIE

Second Defendant

INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF REGISTERS FOR EXERCISE PROFESSIONALS LIMITED

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation; Injurious Falsehood; Fair Trading Act Claims / Interlocutory Applications (strike Out and Particulars)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether pleaded defamatory meanings are capable of the alleged meanings and therefore arguable
  2. 2 Whether the Fair Trading Act s 23 coercion claim is reasonably arguable at strike out stage
  3. 3 Whether ss 9 and 11 Fair Trading Act claims are barred by s 15 when statements are published by news media

Ratio Decidendi

The Court struck out pleaded universal meanings that could not reasonably be read as referring to all CrossFit trainers (paragraphs 25(a) and 25(b) and paragraph 33 meanings) but held the pleaded meaning that CrossFit training carries greater risk of causing incontinence (paragraph 25(c)) survived strike out. The s 23 Fair Trading Act coercion claim and the ss 9 and 11 claims were held to be reasonably arguable; s 15 protects publishers/broadcasting bodies rather than third-party interviewees; plaintiff must particularise and quantify claimed damages and file a further amended statement of claim within 40 working days; costs reserved.

Court Disposition

Defendants' strike out applications partly allowed and partly dismissed; orders made striking out certain pleaded meanings, dismissing other strike out limbs, and requiring further particulars

Orders

  • Meanings pleaded at paragraphs 25(a) and 25(b) of the second amended statement of claim are struck out.
  • Defendants' application as it relates to paragraph 25(c) of the second amended statement of claim is dismissed.