21 Jul 2022
Although the claim might not be conclusively statute-barred because of the multiple publication rule and possible later access, the proceeding is frivolous and not sufficiently serious to warrant use of court processes; accordingly the claim is struck out as frivolous under r 15.1(1)(c) of the High Court Rules (Woolford J, [2022] NZHC 1756).
30 Jun 2022
Defendant's strike-out application dismissed because plaintiff's claim for declaratory relief under s24 Defamation Act is not conclusively time-barred on the Limitation Act s9 analogy and such issues require substantive hearing; defendant's allegation-based strike-out grounds (perjury, conspiracy, consent) were unsupported and premature; the defendant's statement of defence was struck out as prolix, unintelligible, scandalous and non-compliant with pleading and Defamation Act requirements; given the abuse of process, repetitive hopeless applications, outstanding costs and ongoing harassment,…
17 Apr 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed argument that s 24 of the Defamation Act converts a declaratory claim into a money claim has insufficient prospects of success to warrant this Court's intervention; the issues raised (including application of s 9 of the Limitation Act and the multiple publication rule) were unresolved below and therefore it would be inappropriate for this Court to determine them as a court of first instance; alleged procedural unfairness and recusal claims did not justify granting leave.
25 Jul 2017
The Limitation Act 2010 s11 defence applies to money claims; declaratory relief is not a money claim and s11 does not time-bar applications for declarations. Section 43 confirms limitation bars relief but does not extinguish the underlying right. No New Zealand statute was identified that bars declaratory relief for defamation, so the statement of claim seeking declarations is not time-barred.
19 Dec 2016
The draft ASOC5 was substantially compliant with procedural and defamation pleading requirements; the stay did not operate as an irrevocable unless order and should be lifted on conditions. The Court ordered the stay lifted provided the plaintiff files a corrected ASOC5 by 23 January 2017 splitting the second cause to separate the 28 June 2011 post, removing pleaded non‑party republications, and particularising claimed loss; most alleged non‑party republications pleaded were time‑barred.