Arnold v Stuff Ltd - [2018] NZHC 1641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-Ā-TARA ROHE

CIV 2015-485-484

[2018] NZHC 1641

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

KAREN FRANCES ARNOLD

Plaintiff

AND

STUFF LIMITED

First Defendant

TIMOTHY RICHARD SHADBOLT

Second Defendant

Hearing: 23 May 2018. Further memorandum received 25 May 2018.

Appearances:

P A McKnight for Plaintiff

R K P Stewart for First Defendant
F E Geiringer for Second Defendant

Judgment:

4 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF MALLON J

Introduction

[1] Ms Arnold (an Invercargill City councillor) brought a defamation claim against Mr Shadbolt (the Invercargill Mayor) and Stuff (the publisher of The Southland Times). The claim relates to four columns written by Mr Shadbolt published in The Southland Times. After a three week trial, the jury found some of the pleaded meanings to have been proven but none of them to be defamatory of Ms Arnold.

[2] Ms Arnold now applies for an order for a retrial. She does so on two bases. The first concerns counsel’s submissions and my directions to the jury on whether the proven meanings were defamatory. The second, and the one on which more emphasis

ARNOLD v STUFF LIMITED [2018] NZHC 1641 [4 July 2018]

was placed at the hearing on this application, is that the jury’s verdicts are perverse or irrational.

[3] Ms Arnold also disputes the costs and disbursements claimed by Stuff and Mr Shadbolt.

Jury’s verdict

[4] The jury were asked to give a special verdict. They were provided with a question trail for this purpose. The aspects of their verdict which are at issue are as follows:

PUBLICATION 1

Question 1: Meaning

Has Karen Arnold proven that, in the context in which it was published, an ordinary and reasonable reader of Publication 1 would understand it to mean that:

a)Karen Arnold told a series of sensational half-truths and/or outright lies to undermine Holdco director and Invercargill City Councillor Graham Sycamore.

Jury verdict: Yes

Question 2: Defamatory

Has Karen Arnold proven that, for each meaning, that meaning lowers Karen Arnold in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?

a) Karen Arnold has told a series of sensational half-truths and/or outright lies to undermine Holdco director and Invercargill City Councillor Graham Sycamore.

Jury verdict: No

PUBLICATION 2

Question 1: Meaning

Has Karen Arnold proven that, in the context in which it was published, an ordinary and reasonable reader of Publication 2 would understand it to mean that:

Karen Arnold colluded with the Invercargill Ratepayers’ Association to be a destructive influence on Council.

Jury verdict: Yes

Question 2: Defamatory

Has Karen Arnold proven that this meaning lowers her in the estimation of right-thinking members of society generally?

Karen Arnold colluded with the Invercargill Ratepayers’ Association to be a destructive influence on Council.

Jury verdict: No

PUBLICATION 3

Question 1: Meaning

Has Karen Arnold proven that, in the context in which it was published, an ordinary and reasonable reader of Publication 3 would understand it to mean that:

c) Karen…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Arnold v Stuff Ltd

Details

AGLC: Arnold v Stuff Ltd [2018] NZHC 1641
Case: [2018] NZHC 1641
Decision Date: 4 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Karen Frances Arnold, a local body politician, brought a defamation claim against Stuff Limited, the publisher of The Southland Times, and Timothy Richard Shadbolt, the Mayor of Invercargill. Arnold's claim arose from four columns written by Shadbolt published in The Southland Times. The jury found some of the pleaded meanings to have been proven but none of them to be defamatory of Arnold. Arnold applied for a retrial on two bases: the court's directions to the jury on whether the proven meanings were defamatory, and that the jury's verdicts were perverse or irrational. Arnold also disputed the costs claimed by Stuff and Shadbolt.

The court found that the directions to the jury on determining whether the proven meanings were defamatory were appropriate. The court also found that the jury's verdicts were not irrational, as the jury could have reached the verdicts based on the context of the publications and the nature of the dispute. The court rejected Arnold's objections to the costs claimed by Stuff and Shadbolt.

The application for a retrial was dismissed. Arnold was ordered to pay the revised costs claimed by Stuff and Shadbolt, adjusted as indicated in the judgment. The disbursements for travel, accommodation and meals were to be paid for each out-of-town counsel for the defendants on the basis of a daily rate of $228.75.

Orders