New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

New Zealand Case Law

Truth defence

  • 9 Oct 2023

    JINDAL v KAMAL [2023] NZHC 2820

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 2820
    Court
    High Court

    There was sufficient evidence from which it could reasonably be inferred that the plaintiff would be unable to pay adverse costs if unsuccessful (opaque source of recent bank funds, existing liabilities and multiple proceedings). Balancing plaintiff's access to court against defendants' legitimate protection against adverse costs, and having regard to the merits and likely defences, it was just to order staged global security for costs of NZD 60,000 payable to the Registrar in three instalments; unpaid instalments will stay the plaintiff's case until paid.

  • 31 Mar 2023

    TALLEY’S GROUP LTD & Ors v TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND LTD & Anor [2023] NZHC 696 _x000b_

    Citation
    [2023] NZHC 696
    Court
    High Court

    The Court refused to strike out the defendants' truth defences to the 9th‑12th causes and the contextual truth defence to the 5th‑6th causes as the pleaded particulars were reasonably capable of supporting those defences, but ordered the defendants to provide additional particulars where pleaded acts of non‑compliance lacked dates, actors and specifics. The Court struck out Schedule 1 bad reputation particulars as irrelevant to liability and likely to cause prejudice and delay because s 30 permits specific misconduct evidence only in mitigation of damages (not to negate liability or defeat de…

  • 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.

  • 4 May 2021

    CRAIG v MACGREGOR [2021] NZCA 156

    Citation
    [2021] NZCA 156
    Court
    Court of Appeal

    The appeal is dismissed. The Court upheld the High Court finding that Mr Craig sexually harassed Ms MacGregor (consistent with this Court's earlier decision in Craig v Slater) and rejected appellant's attempt to relitigate the same factual conclusion absent materially different evidence. The Court held reply-to-attack qualified privilege is not defeated merely because the original attack was true, but it is lost where the defendant took improper advantage of the occasion, lacked honest belief, acted with ill will or adopted an improper purpose. Here the appellant exceeded the permissible scop…

  • 3 Apr 2020

    STRINGER v CRAIG NO 3 [2020] NZHC 644

    Citation
    [2020] NZHC 644
    Court
    High Court

    Plaintiff's claims dismissed: the Craigs' booklet and press conference statements were lawful responses to plaintiff's sustained attacks and leaks and attracted qualified privilege; nearly all challenged factual imputations were true or not materially different from the truth and opinions were honestly held; Taylor's moderation amounted to participation in publication but he enjoys the same defences; party officials' member updates were privileged under duty to publish; privilege was not defeated by improper purpose except the single corruption imputation for which truth was not established b…

  • 29 Oct 2019

    JOYCE v HOOTON [2019] NZHC 2761

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 2761
    Court
    High Court

    The application for separate preliminary determination of meaning and for strike out was dismissed because contextual evidence was likely required to determine meaning, the application was brought late given proximity of trial so time savings were marginal, the high threshold for separate decisions and strike out was not met, and therefore the extended defence could not be removed at this interlocutory stage.

  • 6 Sept 2019

    CRAIG v MACGREGOR [2019] NZHC 2247

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 2247
    Court
    High Court

    The Court found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant's allegation that Mr Craig sexually harassed her was substantially true and thus the truth defence succeeded for that imputation, but other imputations alleged by Mr Craig (bad employer, causing another's suicide, abusing others) were not proved true and amounted to defamation by the defendant; conversely the Court found Mr Craig's public statements and booklet imputed that Ms MacGregor had made false allegations and called her a liar and those imputations were not defended (except limited matters where truth applied regarding…

  • 19 Jul 2019

    SOLOMON v PRATER [2019] NZHC 1711

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 1711
    Court
    High Court

    The defendant's pleaded affirmative defences of truth and honest opinion are deficient because they fail to identify which statutory limb is relied on, fail to link pleaded facts to the defamatory meanings advanced by the plaintiff, and contain improper particulars; accordingly those defences cannot succeed and will be struck out unless properly repleaded in compliance with the Defamation Act and High Court Rules by a specified date, with costs reserved.

  • 17 Jun 2019

    CRAIG v STRINGER [2019] NZHC 1363

    Citation
    [2019] 3 NZLR 743
    Court
    High Court

    The Court held that although issue estoppel did not bar proof of whether Craig sexually harassed MacGregor because earlier proceedings involved different parties, the cumulative effect of multiple defamation proceedings on the same core issue constituted an abuse of process: permitting Craig to pursue the action against Stringer would be oppressive to MacGregor and unfair to Stringer. The Court therefore stayed Craig's proceeding against Stringer and the corresponding element of Stringer's claim concerning the same issue, while allowing discovery of specified documents, permitting a lawyer to…

  • 25 Mar 2019

    WIREMU v ASHBY [2019] NZHC 558

    Citation
    [2019] NZHC 558
    Court
    High Court

    The collage and annotations conveyed that the plaintiff was a cheat in ordinary meaning and were defamatory; truth defence failed because although plaintiff breached the start rules intentionally he did not act deceitfully to obtain an advantage (no fraudulent cheating); honest opinion failed because the publication presented assertions as facts not opinion; qualified privilege failed because the response was disproportionate and published to a wider audience (exceeded legitimate reply to attack). Accordingly defendant liable; declaration and $10,000 general damages awarded; costs to plaintif…