YOUNG V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV-2011-404-008076

YOUNG V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV-2011-404-008076

The Court held that (1) the documentary, the 6 July 2010 website item and the 7 July 2010 Breakfast segment are not reasonably capable of bearing the plaintiff's alleged tier‑one defamatory meanings (that he was a liar, dishonest, a perjurer); (2) the police letter of 5 May 2011 and TVNZ's 30 May 2011 update/article...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-ca205e61_6cca_4309_9d1e_80f1f5ff25cf.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Daryl Young; First Defendant: Television New Zealand Limited; Second Defendant: Red Sky Film & Television Limited; Third Defendant: Bryan Bruce
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation (civil) / Interlocutory Review and Strike‑out Applications (preliminary Determination of Meanings and Particulars)
Outcome
Interlocutory determination: partial strike‑out of causes of action and particulars; review granted of Associate Judge's orders; limited leave to amend plaintiff's pleadings
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Meaning in Defamation, Strike‑out of Particulars, Discovery and Disclosure, Preliminary Hearings
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Broadcasting Qualified Privilege Meaning in Defamation Strike‑out of Particulars Discovery and Disclosure +1 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 6 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daryl Young

Plaintiff

Television New Zealand Limited

First Defendant

Red Sky Film & Television Limited

Second Defendant

Bryan Bruce

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (civil) / Interlocutory Review and Strike‑out Applications (preliminary Determination of Meanings and Particulars)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether words in the documentary are capable of bearing the alleged tier‑one defamatory meanings
  2. 2 Whether words in the 6 July 2010 website publication are capable of bearing the alleged defamatory meanings
  3. 3 Whether words in the 7 July 2010 Breakfast programme are capable of bearing the alleged defamatory meanings

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that (1) the documentary, the 6 July 2010 website item and the 7 July 2010 Breakfast segment are not reasonably capable of bearing the plaintiff's alleged tier‑one defamatory meanings (that he was a liar, dishonest, a perjurer); (2) the police letter of 5 May 2011 and TVNZ's 30 May 2011 update/article are capable of bearing those defamatory meanings; (3) the Associate Judge's orders requiring discovery and inspection before resolution of the meaning challenges were set aside as erroneous; and (4) most particulars of ill will/improper advantage were struck out as legally insufficient, except limited particulars which survived for amendment or trial.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory determination: partial strike‑out of causes of action and particulars; review granted of Associate Judge's orders; limited leave to amend plaintiff's pleadings

Orders

  • Orders of Bell AJ dated 24 February 2012 are set aside
  • Words in the documentary, the 6 July 2010 website publication and the 7 July 2010 Breakfast programme are not reasonably capable of bearing the alleged defamatory meanings; related causes of action (1,2,3,4,6) struck to the extent pleaded and plaintiff may amend those causes of action within 28 days