New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Meaning in defamation

Legal area

Court

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…
13 Sept 2013

SMITH V DOOLEY CA233/2012 [2013] NZCA 428

Citation

[2013] NZCA 428
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding the High Court erred in finding the appellant's words bore the pleaded serious defamatory meanings; on the proper contextual reading the meanings were not made out, and on the alternative view the statements were substantially true and would have been protected by qualified privilege because predominant ill will was not established and recklessness was not made out once additional telephone evidence was admitted; the High Court also failed properly to exercise its discretion under s24 and should have declined declaratory relief given delay; the…
19 Oct 2012

YOUNG V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV-2011-404-008076

Citation

openlaw-ca205e61_6cca_4309_9d1e_80f1f5ff25cf.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court held that (1) the documentary, the 6 July 2010 website item and the 7 July 2010 Breakfast segment are not reasonably capable of bearing the plaintiff's alleged tier‑one defamatory meanings (that he was a liar, dishonest, a perjurer); (2) the police letter of 5 May 2011 and TVNZ's 30 May 2011 update/article are capable of bearing those defamatory meanings; (3) the Associate Judge's orders requiring discovery and inspection before resolution of the meaning challenges were set aside as erroneous; and (4) most particulars of ill will/improper advantage were struck out as legally insuffi…
24 Feb 2009

YOON CHEOL HONG V DUK SEUNG AHN HC AK CIV-2008-404-008240

Citation

openlaw-6281fbee_2fbf_418d_b66b_e5047b2839ef.pdf
Court

High Court

The notarial certificates were not business records under s19 and constituted expert opinion evidence which required the experts' attendance or the Judge's permission under the Evidence Act and court rules; the TVNZ article was irrelevant and could not establish truth or the respondent's involvement; application to adduce further evidence was therefore dismissed.
24 Jul 2008

SIEMER V FERRIER HODGSON AND ANOR CA CA226/07

Citation

openlaw-34e392a1_fc5b_4dc3_9ba6_f7a3ef18073c.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court held that the High Court judge correctly struck out pleadings and particulars that were irrelevant, scandalous or broadened the issues beyond the Paragon receivership; the honest opinion defence required clearer particulars and could not be used to introduce unrelated allegations; discovery was properly limited to documents relevant to the matters in issue; and the appellant's ad hominem attacks were properly struck from his submissions. Consequently the appeal on the interlocutory rulings was dismissed and offending material struck out.
20 Dec 2007

WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-003311

Citation

openlaw-5225f1cb_7d25_426c_b699_ae534489bb68.pdf
Court

High Court

The review is dismissed. The Associate Judge was correct to conclude TVNZ's broadcast was not asserting that Mr Peters was guilty of serious misconduct or contempt, but the broadcast was capable of conveying that TVNZ was asserting there were grounds for suspicion that Mr Peters may have been involved in misconduct; the pleading also disclosed a viable separate cause of action for republication by Dossetter of her affidavit outside Parliament. The strike-out of the entire cause of action against Mr Carter was upheld because his words were not capable of meaning there was cause for suspicion t…
1 May 2007

PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-003311

Citation

openlaw-17516f21_a5de_4c55_82e4_4d1d268a7ed7.pdf
Court

High Court

Leave to apply for review out of time was granted because the delay (19 days) resulted from counsel's acknowledged error, was promptly remedied, caused no demonstrated material prejudice, and the proposed review disclosed sufficient substance to warrant determination; transfer to the Court of Appeal was declined because the circumstances were not exceptional under s64 Judicature Act (no conflicting High Court decisions, not purely legal issues of first instance to warrant transfer).

New Zealand Case Law

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2021] NZHC 2299

SMITH V DOOLEY CA233/2012 [2013] NZCA 428

YOUNG V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND HC AK CIV-2011-404-008076

YOON CHEOL HONG V DUK SEUNG AHN HC AK CIV-2008-404-008240

SIEMER V FERRIER HODGSON AND ANOR CA CA226/07

WINSTON RAYMOND PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-003311

PETERS V TELEVISION NEW ZEALAND AND ORS HC AK CIV 2004-404-003311