HODGSON AND ANOR V SIEMER AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-1808

HODGSON AND ANOR V SIEMER AND ORS HC AK CIV 2005-404-1808

Struck out specified passages of the statement of defence because they were irrelevant, scandalous, contradictory or an abuse of process; set photocopying cost at 30 cents per page as an interim rate; directed defendants to provide particulars that identify where supporting facts appear in the publications or assert...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
openlaw-4235b045_7baa_4fdd_a150_6e6529daca47.pdf
Parties
First Plaintiff: Ferrier Hodgson; Second Plaintiff: Michael Peter Stiassny; First Defendant: Vincent Ross Siemer; Second Defendant: Paragon Services Limited; Third Defendant: Oggi Advertising Limited; Fourth Defendant: Yahoo! Inc
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
19 April 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil – Defamation and Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Hearing/applications
Outcome
Interlocutory applications partly allowed and partly dismissed; specific strike out and discovery orders made as set out below
Legal Topics
Strike Out, Discovery Scope, Privilege, Honest Opinion Defence, Particulars, Costs, Interim Injunction
Defamation Contract Civil Procedure Evidence Civil Discovery Privilege Strike Out Discovery Scope +4 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ferrier Hodgson

First Plaintiff

Michael Peter Stiassny

Second Plaintiff

Vincent Ross Siemer

First Defendant

Paragon Services Limited

Second Defendant

Oggi Advertising Limited

Third Defendant

Yahoo! Inc

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil – Defamation and Breach of Contract / Interlocutory Hearing/applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Proper photocopying cost for discovered documents
  2. 2 Whether pleaded passages are irrelevant, scandalous, contradictory or an abuse of process and should be struck out
  3. 3 Adequacy and permissible scope of particulars relied on to support a defence of honest opinion under s11 Defamation Act 1992

Ratio Decidendi

Struck out specified passages of the statement of defence because they were irrelevant, scandalous, contradictory or an abuse of process; set photocopying cost at 30 cents per page as an interim rate; directed defendants to provide particulars that identify where supporting facts appear in the publications or assert they were generally known; ordered amendment to paragraph 3.2(b) to make clear particulars are relied on for honest opinion not truth; refused broad further discovery requests as irrelevant and limited further disclosure to a specific affidavit concerning a disputed email (document 14.4). Court applied s11 Defamation Act to confine facts available for honest opinion to those...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications partly allowed and partly dismissed; specific strike out and discovery orders made as set out below

Orders

  • Photocopying costs to be paid at 30 cents per page plus GST (interim)
  • Struck out passages of the statement of defence referred to in judgment paragraphs [10],[14],[18],[27],[31],[37],[41] and [42]