Ambrose v Key

[2015] NZHC 2388

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF THE JUDGMENT AND ANY PART OF THE PROCEEDINGS (INCLUDING THE RESULT) IN NEWS MEDIA OR ON THE INTERNET OR OTHER PUBLICLY AVAILABLE DATABASE UNTIL FINAL DISPOSITION OF TRIAL. PUBLICATION IN LAW REPORT OR LAW DIGEST PERMITTED.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-4650

[2015] NZHC 2388

BETWEEN

BRADLEY CHRISTOPHER GEOFFREY AMBROSE
Plaintiff

AND

JOHN PHILLIP KEY

Defendant

Hearing:

28 August 2015

Appearances:

M Salmon and D Nilsson for the Respondent/Plaintiff

B C Gray QC and J Greenleaf for the Applicant/Defendant

Judgment:

2 October 2015

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 2 October 2015 at 12pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:………………………….

Solicitors:

Dominion Law, Auckland. Shortland Chambers, Auckland.

AMBROSE v KEY [2015] NZHC 2388 [2 October 2015]

Introduction

[1]                 The plaintiff, Bradley Ambrose, has brought a defamation claim against the defendant, Rt Hon John Key, in relation to a number of allegedly defamatory comments the defendant made about him.

[2]                 The trial is due to commence in February 2016. The defendant applies to have particulars of the second amended statement of claim struck out in accordance with r 15.1(1)(b) of the High Court Rules (Rules) on the grounds they are irrelevant and raise scandalous material.

Facts

[3]                 On 11 November 2011, the defendant, Prime Minister of New Zealand and the leader of the National Party, attended a meeting with Hon John Banks, the then ACT Party candidate for the Epsom electorate (the Meeting).

[4]  The Meeting formed part of the National Party’s and ACT Party’s respective 2011 general election campaigns.

[5]                 Prior to the Meeting, representatives from all major New Zealand news media agencies were invited to film, take notes and report about the fact that the defendant was endorsing Mr Banks as a candidate for the Epsom electorate in the 2011 general election.

[6]                 Part of the discussion in which the defendant and Mr Banks were engaged was recorded by the plaintiff through a recording device left by him at the table at which they were seated (the Recording).

[7]                 The plaintiff says the Recording was procured inadvertently.1 In an interview with the New Zealand Herald on 13 November 2011, the plaintiff stated that the defendant’s security staff had stopped him from retrieving the recording device and

1      The plaintiff on 17 November 2011 filed an affidavit in the High Court at Auckland in support of a declaration that the Recording was not of a “private communication” under the Crimes Act 1961, in which he gave evidence on oath that the Recording was procured inadvertently.

that the recording device had transmitted the discussion to his camera equipment but he was not aware of the Recording until after the Meeting.

[8]                 On three separate occasions after the Meeting, the defendant made allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff in relation to the Recording (the Statements). They are set out below.

Press Conference of 14 November 2011

[9]The defendant talked to reporters about the…