New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Prior restraint

Legal area

Court

29 Mar 2017

Z V Z [2017] NZCA 94

Citation

[2017] NZAR 660
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court allowed the appeal and rescinded the broad ex parte gagging orders because the applicant had not proved the respondent's statements were clearly untrue or that there was no reasonable possibility of a defence of justification; there was insufficient evidence of blackmail; the blanket restriction on dissemination and searching of files was beyond the narrow circumstances permitting prior restraint, although suppression of party identities was maintained.
17 Mar 2016

LOW VOLUME VEHICLE TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED & ANOR v BRETT [2016] NZHC 467

Citation

[2016] NZHC 467
Court

High Court

The Court exercised its discretion and ordered that costs lie where they fall: the plaintiffs' interim injunction application was refused and the defendant, a lay litigant who breached a prior settlement and only removed statements shortly before hearing, was not entitled to reimbursement of counsel fees; likewise the plaintiffs were not the successful party for costs purposes given the high threshold for prior restraint in defamation.
14 Dec 2015

LOW VOLUME VEHICLE TECHNICAL ASSOCIATION INCORPORATED v BRETT [2015] NZHC 3038

Citation

[2015] NZHC 3038
Court

High Court

The application for an interim injunction was dismissed because the high threshold for prior restraint in defamation was not met: many impugned statements had been removed, only a small number remained, several statements were not obviously defamatory or may be defensible as truth or honest opinion, the defendant offered undertakings against repetition (including not to allege perjury), and freedom of expression weighed against granting a prior restraint; plaintiffs retain remedy at trial for damages.
3 May 2013

CHEN V CARTER HC AK CIV-2013-404-002046

Citation

openlaw-21f6e194_9e40_4f19_a3da_435710d7f2a0.pdf
Court

High Court

The ex parte interim injunction was set aside and the inter partes application for an interim injunction was dismissed because the plaintiff failed to establish there was no reasonable possibility of a defence (notably qualified privilege and potentially truth) and the balance of convenience did not justify prior restraint given the context (communication to owners in response to plaintiff's communications in the lead up to an AGM) and that the impugned material had already been published.
23 Nov 2007

MARTIN V WALL AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2007-404-007297

Citation

openlaw-d36c626b_b2d9_4e3e_918e_0fe32454c06f.pdf
Court

High Court

Because the second defendant gave an express confirmation it will plead and seek to prove justification and the content of the proposed article was not shown to be obviously untrue, the court refused the interlocutory injunction.
22 Feb 2006

C4 PRODUCTIONS LTD V TV3 NETWORK SERVICES LTD HC WN CIV 2006-485-318

Citation

openlaw-16ffcbdb_65e8_4c7b_9c6d_b9ad8ffdb3fa.pdf
Court

High Court

The application for an interim injunction was refused because the plaintiff's claim was not strong on the evidence, clear and compelling reasons for prior restraint were not shown, and the balance of convenience did not favour granting an interlocutory injunction given the limited risk of association and defendants' assurances.
13 Dec 2005

SIEMER AND ANOR V FERRIER HODGSON AND ORS CA CA87/05

Citation

openlaw-b2898d69_3661_49c1_9859_79fcecf08bc2.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The Court dismissed the appeal and maintained the High Court interlocutory injunction because there was a seriously arguable contractual cause of action (breach of the compromise agreement clause prohibiting public comment), the appellants were unlikely to establish cancellation of the agreement, damages would be inadequate to protect reputation, and the balance of convenience favoured maintaining the injunction; the procedural objection under r 33 was rejected and the Court did not need to decide the defamation point.
25 Mar 2004

MICHAEL NOEL JAMES HOSKING AND MARIE ANGELA HOSKING V SIMON RUNTING And Ors CA CA101/03

Citation

openlaw-d5209efe_2441_4808_84a5_0f6d62b4c056.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

A majority of the Court recognised a cause of action in New Zealand for wrongful publicity of private facts (a privacy tort) with elements: (1) a reasonable expectation of privacy in the facts; (2) publicity of those facts that would be highly/substantially offensive to a reasonable person; and (3) subject to a defence of legitimate public concern. Applying those elements, the Court held the photographs of the twins taken in a public place did not give rise to a reasonable expectation of privacy nor would their publication be highly offensive, so injunctive relief was not justified and the ap…