18 May 2016
CROSSFIT INC v EXERCISE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1028
- Citation
- [2016] NZHC 1028
- Court
- High Court
The Court struck out pleaded universal meanings that could not reasonably be read as referring to all CrossFit trainers (paragraphs 25(a) and 25(b) and paragraph 33 meanings) but held the pleaded meaning that CrossFit training carries greater risk of causing incontinence (paragraph 25(c)) survived strike out. The s 23 Fair Trading Act coercion claim and the ss 9 and 11 claims were held to be reasonably arguable; s 15 protects publishers/broadcasting bodies rather than third-party interviewees; plaintiff must particularise and quantify claimed damages and file a further amended statement of cl…
- Defamatory meaning analysis
- Strike out under high court rule 15.1
- Interpretation of s 15 fair trading act
- Coercion and harassment under s 23 fair trading act
- Particulars and quantification of damages