CLARKE v FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS (2012) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3221

CLARKE v FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS (2012) LIMITED [2022] NZHC 3221

Read in the context of the Article and given its gossipy and suspicious tone, the sentence referencing the Du Val Foundation (raising $26,000, incurring $18,000 expenses, giving away $2,300) is capable of conveying to the ordinary reasonable reader that there are reasons to suspect or investigate whether the...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] NZHC 3221
Parties
First Plaintiff: John Kenyon Clarke; Second Plaintiff: Charlotte Marie Clarke; First Defendant: Fourth Estate Holdings (2012) Limited; Second Defendant: Maria Slade
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 December 2022
Procedural Posture
Defamation (under Defamation Act 1992) / Pre Trial Separate Hearing Under R 10.15 to Determine Whether Impugned Sentence Is Capable of Alleged Defamatory Meanings (judgment on Preliminary Question)
Outcome
Held that the impugned sentence is capable of each of the pleaded defamatory meanings; plaintiffs entitled to costs; directions given for costs memoranda
Legal Topics
Defamatory Meaning, Ordinary Reasonable Reader Test, Context and Tone in Meaning, Preliminary/jurisdictional Question on Meaning
Defamation Media Law Charities Law Defamatory Meaning Ordinary Reasonable Reader Test Context and Tone in Meaning Preliminary/jurisdictional Question on Meaning

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Kenyon Clarke

First Plaintiff

Charlotte Marie Clarke

Second Plaintiff

Fourth Estate Holdings (2012) Limited

First Defendant

Maria Slade

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (under Defamation Act 1992) / Pre Trial Separate Hearing Under R 10.15 to Determine Whether Impugned Sentence Is Capable of Alleged Defamatory Meanings (judgment on Preliminary Question)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sentence referencing Du Val Foundation is capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings (suspect/unlawful/improper/unethical misapplication of funds); application of ordinary reasonable reader test; relevance of article tone and context to meaning

Ratio Decidendi

Read in the context of the Article and given its gossipy and suspicious tone, the sentence referencing the Du Val Foundation (raising $26,000, incurring $18,000 expenses, giving away $2,300) is capable of conveying to the ordinary reasonable reader that there are reasons to suspect or investigate whether the plaintiffs operated the Foundation unlawfully or improperly by spending the majority of funds on unspecified expenses unconnected to charitable purposes.

Court Disposition

Held that the impugned sentence is capable of each of the pleaded defamatory meanings; plaintiffs entitled to costs; directions given for costs memoranda

Orders

  • Preliminary question answered: the sentence is capable of meanings pleaded at Associate Judge Gardiner's paragraphs (a)-(d)
  • Plaintiffs entitled to costs; if parties cannot agree plaintiffs to file memorandum within 10 working days and defendants to respond within 5 working days; memoranda to be under five pages; court to determine costs on the papers