Legal Research
Cases
Baker v Stuff Limited

Baker v Stuff Limited

Case [2025] NZHC 1434 4 June 2025

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

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

CIV-2024-485-538

[2025] NZHC 1434

BETWEEN
CHANTELLE BAKER

Plaintiff

AND

STUFF LIMITED

First Defendant

KATE HANNAH

Second Defendant

Hearing: 21 May 2025

Appearances:

M Hague and K Wang for Plaintiff

D Nilsson for First and Second Defendant

Judgment:

4 June 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SKELTON

Introduction

[1] This matter involves applications by the first and second defendants against the plaintiff for security for costs.

[2]The plaintiff, Chantelle Baker, has sued the defendants for defamation.

[3] The first defendant, Stuff Limited, produced and released a documentary in August 2022. The documentary investigates the spread of misinformation in New Zealand in relation to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and its social and political effects, including as expressed during and after the protest at Parliament in February and early March 2022.

BAKER v STUFF LIMITED [2025] NZHC 1434 [4 June 2025]

[4] The second defendant, Kate Hannah, is the founder and former director of “The Disinformation Project”, an unincorporated research organisation established in 2020 to study the effects of misinformation. Ms Hannah was interviewed for the documentary and features in it.

[5] Ms Baker is discussed in the documentary as one of the actors responsible for the spread of misinformation in New Zealand, including during the protest at Parliament. Stuff also published an article in conjunction with the documentary, and it explains the approach that Stuff adopted in producing the documentary, but does not identify Ms Baker by name.

[6] Ms Baker alleges that Stuff and Ms Hannah made defamatory statements in the documentary (the first cause of action) and the article (the second cause of action). In her amended statement of claim, Ms Baker identifies eleven statements which she alleges are defamatory. She alleges ten statements were made by Stuff and one by Ms Hannah. Mr Hague, for Ms Baker, submits that, in summary, the defendants said Ms Baker was part of a group of people and organisations who were key drivers in New Zealand of false information and dangerous conspiracy.

[7] Ms Baker seeks damages, including interest on any damages, and costs from Stuff under both causes of action. In relation to the first cause of action, Ms Baker seeks a declaration that the statements made by Ms Hannah are defamatory and that she is liable to the plaintiff in defamation. Ms Baker seeks compensatory damages of
$30,000, interest on any damages and costs against Ms Hannah.

[8] Both defendants defend the claims. Following the filing of an amended statement of claim and amended statements of defence, the defendants raised concerns about Ms Baker’s ability to meet any adverse costs award based on public statements made by her. The parties were unable to reach agreement on the issue of security for costs. Both defendants have now applied for security for costs in an amount to be determined by the Court. They also seek costs on the applications.

[9]Ms Baker opposes both applications…

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 Baker v Stuff Limited

Details

AGLC: Baker v Stuff Limited [2025] NZHC 1434
Case: [2025] NZHC 1434
Decision Date: 4 June 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand dealt with an application for security for costs by Stuff Limited and Kate Hannah against Chantelle Baker in a defamation suit. Baker sued the defendants for defamation arising from a documentary produced by Stuff and an article published in conjunction with the documentary. The defendants applied for security for costs, arguing that Baker, who resides in Australia, would be unable to pay any adverse costs award. The court found that the threshold test under r 5.45(1) of the High Court Rules was met, as Baker resides overseas. The court considered various factors in deciding whether an order for security for costs would be just in all the circumstances. These included the apparent merits of Baker’s claim, whether Baker had access to third-party funding, whether the denial of security would be oppressive to the defendants, and whether ordering security would deprive Baker of the ability to advance her claim. The court concluded that an order for security for costs should be made, balancing the legitimate interests of both parties. The court fixed the security for costs at $100,000 to be paid in three stages, with specific deadlines for each payment to ensure clarity and fairness to both parties. The defendants were awarded costs on a 2B basis, with reasonable disbursements.

Orders