New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Malice/ill will

Legal area

Court

11 Apr 2019

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 38

Citation

[2019] 1 NZLR 457
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held the Court of Appeal erred in entering judgment on liability and ordering a damages-only retrial because material misdirections occurred in the jury summing up on qualified privilege (over-emphasis on ill will, relevance, scope of publication, and an inappropriate focus on 'reasonable care' rather than the defendant's honest belief/knowledge); those misdirections risked a miscarriage of justice and required substitution of a general retrial on liability and damages; cross-appeal dismissed and costs awarded to appellant.
17 Aug 2018

C LEISHMAN v R H LEVIE and HOME OWNERS AND BUYERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 2122

Citation

[2018] NZAR 1276
Court

High Court

The limited interrogatories 5(c),(e) and (f) directed to eight identified bodies corporate are relevant because answers may tend to prove a pattern of similar publications by the defendants indicative of ill will and non-genuine opinion, are not impermissible fishing given the evidential material supplied, and confidentiality/oppression objections do not outweigh the plaintiff's need; accordingly the defendants must answer and verify by affidavit within specified time.
5 Mar 2018

WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2018] NZCA 31

Citation

[2018] 3 NZLR 1
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal in part: the High Court's order for a retrial on both liability and damages was set aside; judgment was entered for Williams on liability in accordance with the jury verdict; a retrial was ordered limited to damages only because liability and quantum were severable and the jury's liability findings were capable of rational explanation; the jury's award of $1.27m was excessive and must be set aside; the trial judge did not materially misdirect the jury on qualified privilege and the jury's finding that the respondent lost privilege was supported by the evidence.
19 Oct 2016

WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2016] NZHC 2496

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1569
Court

High Court

On the undisputed facts the communications from the defendant were a bona fide, relevant reply to an attack on his character published to an audience with a corresponding interest, therefore they were made on occasions of common law qualified privilege; whether that privilege was lost (by ill will or improper advantage) was a matter for the jury to determine.
6 Mar 2014

YOUNG V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA738/2012 [2014] NZCA 50

Citation

[2014] NZCA 50
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal held Gilbert J did not err: the 2010 documentary and related 2010 publications were not capable of bearing the tier‑one defamatory meanings pleaded; most particulars alleging ill will or improper advantage were properly struck out as tenuous or premised on struck-out meanings; the Associate Judge's directions requiring full pleading and discovery before a determination of meaning were rightly set aside; remaining actionable material related only to the 2011 police letter publications.

New Zealand Case Law

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS [2019] NZSC 38

C LEISHMAN v R H LEVIE and HOME OWNERS AND BUYERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 2122

WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2018] NZCA 31

WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2016] NZHC 2496

YOUNG V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LIMITED CA738/2012 [2014] NZCA 50