JOHN EVANS DORBU V DAVID COOKE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-005222

JOHN EVANS DORBU V DAVID COOKE AND ORS HC AK CIV 2008-404-005222

Defamation claim struck out and summary judgment entered because pleadings failed to specify the defamatory words or meanings as required and there was no evidence the defendants published the statements attributed to the Body Corporate; negligence, trespass and conspiracy claims fail because the impugned acts were taken by the Body Corporate (a separate entity), no personal duty or unlawful means were pleaded or established, and the pleaded causes of action disclose no reasonable grounds to succeed.

Citation
openlaw-17b94a67_03d2_4ff8_880e_7036e3b49b44.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: John Evans Dorbu; First Defendant: David Cooke; Second Defendant: Pierre Le Noel; Third Defendant: Barry Hedgman; Fourth Defendant: Crockers Strata Management Limited
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Proceedings (defamation, Negligence, Trespass, Conspiracy) Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications / High Court Judgment Following Hearing on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment for the defendants; plaintiff's claims struck out or dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Particulars of Defamatory Meaning, Duty of Care and Proximity, Publication and Attribution, Company Limited Liability and Personal Liability of Officers, Unit Titles/body Corporate Governance
Defamation Tort Negligence Trespass Conspiracy Civil Procedure Corporate/body Corporate Law Summary Judgment Strike Out +5 more

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

Parties

John Evans Dorbu

Plaintiff

David Cooke

First Defendant

Pierre Le Noel

Second Defendant

Barry Hedgman

Third Defendant

Crockers Strata Management Limited

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Proceedings (defamation, Negligence, Trespass, Conspiracy) Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications / High Court Judgment Following Hearing on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants published defamatory statements in the Fair Go broadcast or in the solicitor's letter to the broadcaster
  2. 2 Whether the defamation pleadings complied with rules/statute requiring particulars and verbatim words and whether evidence links defendants to publication
  3. 3 Whether a duty of care existed to ground the negligence claim and whether defendants assumed personal liability separate from the Body Corporate

Ratio Decidendi

Defamation claim struck out and summary judgment entered because pleadings failed to specify the defamatory words or meanings as required and there was no evidence the defendants published the statements attributed to the Body Corporate; negligence, trespass and conspiracy claims fail because the impugned acts were taken by the Body Corporate (a separate entity), no personal duty or unlawful means were pleaded or established, and the pleaded causes of action disclose no reasonable grounds to succeed.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment for the defendants; plaintiff's claims struck out or dismissed

Orders

  • Summary judgment entered for the defendants
  • Plaintiff's causes of action for defamation, negligence, trespass and conspiracy struck out or dismissed