Bains v Singh - [2023] NZHC 1566

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2021-004-1422

[2023] NZHC 1566

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

IN THE MATTER OF

the Defendant’s Facebook statements

BETWEEN

GUWINDER SINGH BAINS

Plaintiff

AND

HARNEK SINGH

Defendant

Hearing: 24 May 2023

Appearances:

A Romanos (via VMR) for the Plaintiff R K P Stewart for the Defendant

Judgment:

23 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE C B TAYLOR

Application for leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 June 2023 at 3:00pm
pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………. Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Langford Law (J A Langford), Wellington, for the Plaintiff Rice Craig (Neville Woods), Papakura, for the Defendant

Counsel:
P A McKnight/A J Romanos, Wellington, for the Plaintiff
Robert Stewart, Shortland Chambers, Auckland, for the Defendant

BAINS v SINGH [2023] NZHC 1566 [23 June 2023]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Paragraph

Background [4]

Legal principles [7]

Mr Bains’ submissions [9]

Honest opinion – Publication 1 [11]

First ground [12]

Second ground [14]

Third ground [20]

Fourth ground [23]

Fifth ground [25]

Honest opinion - Publications 2, 3 and 4 [27]

Qualified privilege [37]

First ground [37]

Second ground [44]

Third and Fourth grounds [47]

Fifth ground [51]

Sixth ground [54]

Is the delay of an appeal warranted? [58]

Do the interests of justice favour granting leave to appeal? [61]

Result [64]

Orders [66]

–––––––––––––––––––––––-

[1] Mr Bains has brought defamation proceedings against Mr Singh. Mr Bains brought an application for orders striking out Mr Singh’s affirmative defences of honest opinion and qualified privilege.

[2] On 28 February 2023, the Court delivered a judgment dismissing Mr Bain’s strike-out application (the Judgment)1 and Mr Bains has filed an application for leave to appeal the judgment to the Court of Appeal.

[3]The following submissions have been filed in respect of the application:

(a)submissions in support of the application filed by Mr Romanos, dated 11 May 2023;

(b)submissions in opposition to the application filed by Mr Stewart, dated 18 May 2023;

(c)reply submissions filed by Mr Romanos, dated 22 May 2023.

Background

[4] Mr Singh made posts on his personal Facebook page concerning Mr Bains. Four posts are the subject of the defamation proceedings brought by Mr Bains as follows:

(a)The first post (Publication 1) is a republication of a Facebook post made by Judge Saab. Mr Saab’s post refers to Mr Bains having been punched in the eye for saying he wanted to rape Mr Saab’s partner (the rape post).

1 Bains v Singh [2023] NZHC 332.

(b)The second post (Publication 2) appears to be a poem, to which a photograph of Mr Bains is appended. Mr Bains’s interpretation of that post is that it suggests Mr Bains is corrupt, that he has bought his good reputation, and that he is depraved and has misconducted himself sexually.

(c)The third post (Publication 3), according to Mr Bains’s interpretation, again suggests Mr…

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 Bains v Singh

Details

AGLC: Bains v Singh [2023] NZHC 1566
Case: [2023] NZHC 1566
Decision Date: 23 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Guwinder Singh Bains has brought defamation proceedings against Harneek Singh, contesting statements made by Singh on Facebook. Bains applied to strike out Singh's defences of honest opinion and qualified privilege, but this application was dismissed in Bains v Singh [2023] NZHC 332. Bains has now filed an application for leave to appeal this interlocutory judgment. Associate Judge C B Taylor considered the application, evaluating the grounds for appeal and whether the interests of justice favour granting leave. The key issues were whether the court erred in its approach to the defence of honest opinion and whether the defence of qualified privilege was correctly rejected. The court found that some of Bains' arguments had merit, particularly regarding the court's approach to the pleaded meanings in assessing the honest opinion defence. The court also found that the issue of whether the defence of qualified privilege based on duty and interest still exists, post Dury v Gardiner, warrants appellate consideration. Accordingly, leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment was granted. Bains is to bear costs on a 2B basis, but the parties have been directed to attempt to agree on costs before the matter is decided on the papers.

Orders