5 Jul 2023
Defendant published statements via Facebook group, private Facebook message and telephone call that, read in context by ordinary recipients, imputed misappropriation/theft of club funds and untrustworthiness; those imputations were false on the affidavit evidence, no valid defences were available, and therefore the defendant was liable in defamation; plaintiff entitled to a declaration under s24 and costs.
7 Mar 2023
Costs follow the event: defendant Bain is awarded scale costs for the substantive proceeding with specified amendments to the schedule, disbursements of $9,068, and a 25% uplift on specified trial preparation steps (not the 50% claimed); interlocutory costs for the three linked applications are awarded to the plaintiff in the sum of $13,384; costs are not reserved pending appeal and reductions under r14.7 are not warranted on the facts.
2 Dec 2022
Read in the context of the Article and given its gossipy and suspicious tone, the sentence referencing the Du Val Foundation (raising $26,000, incurring $18,000 expenses, giving away $2,300) is capable of conveying to the ordinary reasonable reader that there are reasons to suspect or investigate whether the plaintiffs operated the Foundation unlawfully or improperly by spending the majority of funds on unspecified expenses unconnected to charitable purposes.
1 Oct 2019
Extension of time to bring appeals was granted; substituted service by email was found effective on the evidence (emails, website removal timing and server contacts); the District Court correctly found the publications defamatory and motivated by malice; affirmative defences were not pleaded and, on the facts, would have failed; awards of general and exemplary damages were within permissible range and the appeals were dismissed.
13 Mar 2019
The article was, as a matter of law, capable of bearing some of the pleaded defamatory meanings (notably that the plaintiff was responsible for releasing the settlement statement and that she may have breached confidentiality in doing so), but was not capable of bearing the pleaded meanings that she misused her position by favouring her mother's media outlet or concealed her relationship in the manner pleaded; the plaintiff must re‑plead to particularise the remaining claims.
4 Jul 2018
Judge refused retrial: directions were legally correct and appropriately emphasised context and the objective test; counsel's comments did not mislead the jury; the jury were properly told reputational harm is presumed for damages; the jury's verdicts were rationally open on the evidence and the political context including the author's rhetorical style; costs awarded to defendants with limited adjustments to bands and disbursements.
2 Oct 2017
The Court held that New Zealand follows the multiple publication rule for internet blogs so the pleaded causes were not time-barred; the presumption of reputational harm on publication remains but is rebuttable and an action will fail if defendant proves harm was less than minor (threshold more than minor); many pleaded meanings were capable of defamatory meaning and the bulk of strike-out applications failed; the procurement/accessory claim against Rich and NZFGC was not self-evidently speculative and procuring publication can found liability, so that claim stands; strike-out relief granted…
19 Oct 2016
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
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.
17 Dec 2010
The Court held the Briefing Paper and Oral Statements were capable of bearing the pleaded defamatory meanings and therefore the strikeout of those defamation pleadings could not stand; however Article 9 and s13 prevent pleading that the Minister's statements in Parliament amounted to a republication (such reliance would question parliamentary proceedings); preparatory materials and briefings were not extended absolute privilege beyond proceedings in the House; the negligent misstatement cause of action was struck out because there was insufficient proximity and policy reasons against imposing…