MEEHAN & ORS v FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS (2012) LTD & OR [2019] NZHC 1285

MEEHAN & ORS v FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS (2012) LTD & OR [2019] NZHC 1285

Applying the Kirkland three-step test the Court found the Auckland (NBR and Crux) and Dunedin (ODT) publications were not of the same or substantially the same matter: the words differ, the pleaded defamatory imputations differ materially, and the articles as a whole have different focuses; defendants suffered no real prejudice and already knew of the other proceeding; defendants' s47 application to dismiss or stay was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] NZHC 1285
Parties
First Plaintiff: Christopher Scott Meehan; Second Plaintiff: Michaela Ward Meehan; Third Plaintiff: Northlake Investments Limited; First Defendant: Fourth Estate Holdings (2012) Limited; Second Defendant (trustee): Richard John Hubbard; Second Defendant (trustee): Joan Mary Keenan; Second Defendant (trustee): David Gibson; Second Defendant (trustee): Katherine Schuitmaker; Second Defendant (trustee): Ralph Hanan; Second Defendant (trustee): Simon Telfer
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
11 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Hearing on Interlocutory Application Under S47 Defamation Act 1992 to Dismiss or Stay Proceeding (judgment Delivered)
Outcome
Defendants' application to dismiss or stay proceeding dismissed
Legal Topics
Multiple Proceedings, S47 Defamation Act 1992, Consolidation, Meaning of "same or Substantially the Same Matter", Notice Requirement
Defamation Law Civil Procedure Media Law Multiple Proceedings S47 Defamation Act 1992 Consolidation Meaning of "same or Substantially the Same Matter" Notice Requirement

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher Scott Meehan

First Plaintiff

Michaela Ward Meehan

Second Plaintiff

Northlake Investments Limited

Third Plaintiff

Fourth Estate Holdings (2012) Limited

First Defendant

Richard John Hubbard

Second Defendant (trustee)

Joan Mary Keenan

Second Defendant (trustee)

David Gibson

Second Defendant (trustee)

Katherine Schuitmaker

Second Defendant (trustee)

Ralph Hanan

Second Defendant (trustee)

Simon Telfer

Second Defendant (trustee)

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Hearing on Interlocutory Application Under S47 Defamation Act 1992 to Dismiss or Stay Proceeding (judgment Delivered)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether publications in Auckland and Dunedin proceedings are of the same or substantially the same matter for the purposes of s47 Defamation Act 1992
  2. 2 Whether failure to give s47 notice warrants dismissal or stay of proceeding
  3. 3 Application of Kirkland three-step test to compare publications

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the Kirkland three-step test the Court found the Auckland (NBR and Crux) and Dunedin (ODT) publications were not of the same or substantially the same matter: the words differ, the pleaded defamatory imputations differ materially, and the articles as a whole have different focuses; defendants suffered no real prejudice and already knew of the other proceeding; defendants' s47 application to dismiss or stay was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Defendants' application to dismiss or stay proceeding dismissed

Orders

  • Application to dismiss or stay proceeding dismissed
  • Preliminary view that plaintiffs entitled to costs on a 2B basis