COOPER v HAMILTON PHARMACY 2011 LIMITED [2016] NZHC 437

COOPER v HAMILTON PHARMACY 2011 LIMITED [2016] NZHC 437

Indirect speech in pleadings is acceptable so long as it sets out the defamatory statements with reasonable precision; plaintiff's paragraph 11 and 12 and 19 pleadings were adequate; paragraph 9 contains discrepancies ("stolen money" v "stolen bankings") and potential republication of another's statement was not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 437
Parties
Plaintiff: Simon Cooper; First Defendant: Hamilton Pharmacy 2011 Limited; Second Defendant: Graham Burnett; Third Defendant: Papamoa Pines Pharmacy Limited; Fourth Defendant: Brookfield Pharmacy Limited; Fifth Defendant: Elisabeth Kathleen Clare; Sixth Defendant: Andrea Catherine Coombes
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Defamation and Injurious Falsehood (under Defamation Act 1992) / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars and Discovery (pre Trial Case Management)
Outcome
Defendants' application for further particulars dismissed; limited discovery orders granted and others refused
Legal Topics
Particulars of Oral Defamation, Publication and Re Publication, Qualified Privilege, Statutory Immunity (hpcaa S34(4)), Mitigation and S30/s42 Defamation Act 1992, Disclosure Obligations and Redactions
Defamation Injurious Falsehood Civil Procedure Discovery Evidence Particulars of Oral Defamation Publication and Re Publication Qualified Privilege Statutory Immunity (hpcaa S34(4)) +2 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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simon Cooper

Plaintiff

Hamilton Pharmacy 2011 Limited

First Defendant

Graham Burnett

Second Defendant

Papamoa Pines Pharmacy Limited

Third Defendant

Brookfield Pharmacy Limited

Fourth Defendant

Elisabeth Kathleen Clare

Fifth Defendant

Andrea Catherine Coombes

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation and Injurious Falsehood (under Defamation Act 1992) / Interlocutory Application for Further Particulars and Discovery (pre Trial Case Management)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether plaintiff must plead exact words of alleged oral defamations or whether indirect speech is adequate
  2. 2 Whether plaintiff must identify recipients and dates of alleged telephone publications
  3. 3 Whether republication of a third party's statement must be pleaded separately

Ratio Decidendi

Indirect speech in pleadings is acceptable so long as it sets out the defamatory statements with reasonable precision; plaintiff's paragraph 11 and 12 and 19 pleadings were adequate; paragraph 9 contains discrepancies ("stolen money" v "stolen bankings") and potential republication of another's statement was not pleaded and plaintiff was given opportunity to amend; plaintiff is required to produce unredacted bank statements and continue ongoing disclosure of Pharmacy Council communications; application to compel disclosure of medical and employment records predating employment was dismissed because defendants had not given s42 notice to rely on specific misconduct and early records were...

Court Disposition

Defendants' application for further particulars dismissed; limited discovery orders granted and others refused

Orders

  • Defendants' application for further particulars dismissed
  • Plaintiff may review and, if desired, amend paragraph 9 of the statement of claim and file any amended statement before the next case management conference