FRANCIS THOMAS DOOLEY V RAYMOND BRUCE SMITH HC GRY CIV-2009-418-125

FRANCIS THOMAS DOOLEY V RAYMOND BRUCE SMITH HC GRY CIV-2009-418-125

Defendants published statements that, in their natural and ordinary meaning, imputed that plaintiff knowingly denied existence of a material email and misled trustees; defendants failed to establish truth or honest opinion because the statements were premised on a false factual assumption (plaintiff did not know of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-a2976dff_c923_4673_9e6d_9918bf725763.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Francis Thomas Dooley; First Defendant: Raymond Bruce Smith; Second Defendant: Mohammed Shahadat
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
26 March 2012
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment Declaration Under S 24(1) Defamation Act 1992
Outcome
Declaration that First Defendant Raymond Bruce Smith and Second Defendant Mohammed Shahadat are liable to Plaintiff Francis Thomas Dooley in defamation
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Honest Opinion, Truth Defence, Republication, Lange Principles
Defamation Media Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Honest Opinion Truth Defence Republication Lange Principles

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Francis Thomas Dooley

Plaintiff

Raymond Bruce Smith

First Defendant

Mohammed Shahadat

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment Declaration Under S 24(1) Defamation Act 1992

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Meaning of published statements
  2. 2 Whether meanings are defamatory
  3. 3 Truth defence

Ratio Decidendi

Defendants published statements that, in their natural and ordinary meaning, imputed that plaintiff knowingly denied existence of a material email and misled trustees; defendants failed to establish truth or honest opinion because the statements were premised on a false factual assumption (plaintiff did not know of the email until 1 October 2007), and qualified privilege was defeated because defendants were predominantly motivated by ill will and/or took improper advantage of any privileged occasion; declaration of liability granted under s 24(1).

Court Disposition

Declaration that First Defendant Raymond Bruce Smith and Second Defendant Mohammed Shahadat are liable to Plaintiff Francis Thomas Dooley in defamation

Orders

  • Declaration under s 24(1) Defamation Act 1992 that Raymond Bruce Smith and Mohammed Shahadat are liable to Francis Thomas Dooley in defamation
  • Costs reserved; defendants to pay plaintiff's costs on a solicitor-client basis unless the Court orders otherwise; parties to attempt agreement on costs within four weeks, failing which specified timetable for memoranda and Court determination (file by 30 April 2012 and responses thereafter)