New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Broadcasting standards

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2022

TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD v WICKS & ANOR [2022] NZHC 597

Citation

[2022] NZHC 597
Court

High Court

The Court found the Authority reasonably concluded the interviewee was identifiable and dismissed the appeal on that issue; because TVNZ adduced further evidence on appeal the Court remitted the remaining issues (reasonable expectation of privacy, offensiveness of disclosure, and informed consent) to the Authority for reconsideration in light of that evidence and ordered interim non‑publication to protect the interviewee.
8 Mar 2021

REEKIE v DISCOVERY NZ LTD (formerly known as MEDIAWORKS TV LTD [2021] NZHC 411

Citation

[2021] NZHC 411
Court

High Court

The High Court upheld the Authority's decisions: Mr Garner's remarks were opinionated, contextualised, and fell within audience expectations for The AM Show; they did not target Māori or prisoners as a protected group, did not meet the threshold for incitement or breach of Standards 1,4,5,6,8 or 9, and the Authority's contextual balancing was a tenable exercise of discretion (not plainly wrong).
11 Dec 2018

REEKIE v MEDIAWORKS TV LTD [2018] NZHC 3260

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3260
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its case management discretion to order the respondent to make the three specified broadcasts available for inspection because the appellant had raised a sufficient basis for their possible relevance; if, after inspection, the appellant sought to rely on any of them they must be included in the Common Bundle for the appeal. The Court declined to finally rule on admissibility at this interlocutory stage and adopted production and timetable directions as the efficient and fair means to resolve the issue.
25 Jul 2017

LOWES v MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1729

Citation

[2017] NZHC 1729
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion to decline a general costs award given the circumstances and the respondent's conduct, but awarded the respondent reasonable and necessary disbursements of $606.79 for in-house counsel travel, to be paid from the security for costs held by the Court, with the balance refunded to the appellant.
13 Feb 2012

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SAMOA V TVWORKS LIMITED HC WN CIV-2011-485-1110

Citation

openlaw-ab55356f_39ee_48d5_8245_2724f83f3065.pdf
Court

High Court

The appeal is dismissed: the BSA did not breach natural justice or misapply jurisdiction in using a paper process; Standard 4 was not properly pleaded so BSA rightly declined to consider it; the BSA acted within its discretion and its factual and evaluative findings on Standards 5 and 6 were open to it and not plainly wrong; the door-stepping was justifiable in the circumstances and absence of the unedited Deputy PM tape, while unfortunate, did not render the BSA's process unlawful.
17 Jun 2011

ALP V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2011-404-3586

Citation

openlaw-2d9c8f86_ac8d_4284_b2ea_b5adb71a27d0.pdf
Court

High Court

Application for an interim mandatory injunction was refused because there was no serious issue to be tried: the broadcaster's decision was based on relevant considerations (polling, representation, time constraints and editorial judgment), was not arbitrary or discriminatory on the facts, and intervention would unduly intrude on media editorial independence absent an exceptional and compelling case.
21 Apr 2011

TVNZ V WEST HC AK CIV-2010-485-002007

Citation

openlaw-e0871f7b_5a6c_4f58_9d06_f9f48b62d0e6.pdf
Court

High Court

On the TVNZ/Hung appeal the Court found the BSA majority was plainly wrong to characterise the scene as gratuitous and solely titillating because the narrative context, AO–9.30pm classification, late screening time and warnings made the scene integral and foreseeable; the TVNZ appeal was allowed and the BSA decision reversed. On the TVWorks/Home and Away appeal the Court found the Authority's judgment that the raunchy scene was inappropriate in a G timeband and the s5 proportionality balancing were within the Authority's discretion and not plainly wrong; the TVWorks appeal was dismissed and t…
3 Nov 2010

NICHOLAS PAUL ALFRED REEKIE V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED HC AK CIV-2010-404-004893

Citation

openlaw-d45eaba6_e84a_44b2_89ac_c6cca4357527.pdf
Court

High Court

Appeal dismissed: the Authority was entitled to treat the repeat complaint as frivolous and vexatious under s11; the 1993 convictions were not private given their seriousness and their revival by 2003 convictions; Standard 7 did not apply to an individual in these circumstances; the programme was a drama based on a true story so no disclaimer was required; NZBORA double jeopardy was not engaged as ongoing publicity is not a second punishment.
11 Mar 2010

EASTON V RADIO NEW ZEALAND HC WN CIV 2008-485-1465

Citation

openlaw-31c6fb4c_9879_41fb_87c8_87980dcd874e.pdf
Court

High Court

Special leave to appeal was granted; the Authority did not misconstrue the complaint — the complaint was equivocal and properly treated as alleging lack of balance (BS4); the broadcast was not a discussion of a controversial issue attracting BS4 and, in any event, no breach of BS4 was made out; the broadcast did not breach BS7 because the material consisted of factual recounting and genuine, serious comment by a lawyer falling within Guideline 7a and did not amount to encouragement of discrimination; appeal dismissed and Authority's decision of 4 June 2008 upheld; costs awarded to Radio New Z…