New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Punitive damages

Legal area

Court

29 Aug 2022

SPRING v WILLIAMS [2022] NZHC 2165

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2165
Court

High Court

The Instagram post was reasonably understood to impute criminal conduct (drug dealing and money laundering) to the plaintiff, was published by the defendant to others, the defendant failed to justify the statements and acted maliciously; the plaintiff proved reputational and financial harm entitling him to a declaration and general damages of NZD 170,000; punitive damages were not warranted beyond that award.
2 Sept 2021

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2299

Citation

[2021] NZHC 2299
Court

High Court

Evidence offered to prove the natural and ordinary meaning of impugned words or the defendants' intended meaning is inadmissible; evidence that is irrelevant or whose low probative value is outweighed by unfair prejudice must be excluded under s 8; rumours are admissible to prove their existence and content but not to prove their truth; non‑expert opinion and submissions in briefs are inadmissible; expert evidence on journalistic standards is relevant to the responsible communication defence, but hypothetical evidence about consequences if a professional authority were to find allegations tru…
16 Jun 2021

LESLIE NORMAN AUSTIN v ROCHE PRODUCTS (NEW ZEALAND) LIMITED [2021] NZSC 62

Citation

[2021] NZSC 62
Court

Supreme Court

A limited stay of the Supreme Court's dismissal was justified to allow ACC to consider the applicant's late review application because this balances the respondent's lack of immediate prejudice against the applicant's interest in preserving limitation-related effects; remittal and release of security for costs were inappropriate; the stay may be discharged if the applicant fails to pursue his appeal diligently or on other grounds.
4 Jun 2021

STAPLES v FREEMAN [2021] NZHC 1308

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1308
Court

High Court

The Facebook posts administered by Freeman were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning and Freeman published them; District Court pleadings and affidavits were protected by absolute privilege so no liability attaches for those documents; on balance of probabilities Freeman was liable for defamation based on the Facebook publications and plaintiff was awarded general damages of $120,000, interest from the date of judgment and costs on a 2B basis; punitive damages were declined as covered within the aggravated/general award.
12 Mar 2021

SOLOMON v PRATER [2021 NZHC 481

Citation

[2021 NZHC 481
Court

High Court

On the balance of probabilities the defendant authored and published the anonymous letter: Google records show a Gmail account created proximate to the defendant's employment disputes; document metadata attributes the Word attachment to a user name matching the defendant; stylistic and content similarities between the anonymous letter and multiple documents authored by the defendant link authorship; timing, motive and lack of a credible third‑party hypothesis make alternative explanations implausible. Therefore defendant liable for defamation and plaintiff entitled to damages, interest and co…
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.
12 Apr 2017

WILLIAMS v CRAIG [2017] NZHC 724

Citation

[2017] 3 NZLR 215
Court

High Court

The jury's verdicts were set aside and a retrial ordered because the compensatory and punitive damages award of NZD 1,270,000 was well outside the range that could reasonably be justified in all the circumstances (including proven truths, context of defendant replying to an attack, and double counting); however the Court found there was sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to conclude the defendant had lost qualified privilege, so entering judgment for defendant was inappropriate; parties may instead consent to a substituted damages award under s33 Defamation Act 1992.
1 Aug 2016

KIM v CHO [2016] NZHC 1771

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1134
Court

High Court

Defendant authored and procured publication of statements that, in seven of nine instances, bore natural and ordinary defamatory meanings imputing criminality, dishonesty or misuse of office; because the defendant did not plead a defence and did not appear, the Court proceeded on formal proof, did not consider affirmative defences, awarded compensatory damages of NZD100,000 and declined punitive damages; costs awarded on a 2B basis.
2 Oct 2015

AMBROSE v KEY [2015] NZHC 2388

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2388
Court

High Court

The Court struck out paragraph 26 as an impermissibly wide propensity allegation lacking necessary particularity; permitted paragraphs 27–30 to stand only if they are re‑particularised to specified narrow matters within the plaintiff's knowledge, deleted scandalous and unparticularised allegations asserting use of spy agencies and allegations of personal or allies' advantage, struck the phrase 'and at trial' and held that the punitive damages pleading (paragraph 41) is arguably maintainable but must be narrowed to matters directly attributable to the defendant; plaintiff ordered to re‑draft p…
19 Feb 2014

RAZDAN RAFIQ v THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2014] NZSC 7

Citation

[2014] NZSC 7
Court

Supreme Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the proposed appeal did not raise any issue of public or general importance and there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice; the applicant's abusive conduct, prior unpaid costs orders, and refusal to seek legal aid militated against granting leave.