Blomfield v Slater - [2018] NZHC 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2013-404-5218

[2018] NZHC 1100

BETWEEN
MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD

Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER

Defendant

Hearing: 14 and 15 May 2018

Appearances:

F Geiringer for Plaintiff Defendant in person

Judgment:

15 May 2018

Reasons:

18 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for Judge alone trial]

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 May 2018 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date……………

BLOMFIELD v SLATER (2) [2018] NZHC 1100 [15 May 2018]

[1] Mr Blomfield sues Mr Slater in defamation in relation to 13 publications posted over a period of approximately one month on the website Whaleoil.co.nz. The trial is currently scheduled to heard before a jury on 8 October 2018, and has been allocated six weeks.

[2] Mr Blomfield now applies for an order under s 19A(5) of the Judicature Act 1908 that the case before tried before a Judge without a jury.1

[3] During the hearing on 14 and 15 May 2018 I advised Mr Slater and Mr Geiringer for Mr Blomfield that I proposed to grant the application. I did not take Mr Slater to be greatly opposed to that being done. I now give reasons for my decision.

Relevant principles

[4]Section 19A of the Judicature Act 1908 relevantly provides:

19A Certain civil proceedings may be tried by jury

(1)This section applies to civil proceedings in which the only relief claimed is payment of a debt or pecuniary damages or the recovery of chattels.

(2)If the debt or damages or the value of the chattels claimed in any civil proceedings to which this section applies exceeds $3,000, either party may have the civil proceedings tried before a Judge and a jury on giving notice to the Court and to the other party, within the time and in the manner prescribed by the High Court Rules, that he requires the civil proceedings to be tried before a jury.

(3)Notwithstanding anything in subsection (2) of this section, in any case where, after notice has been given pursuant to that subsection but before the trial has commenced, the debt or damages or the value of the chattels claimed is reduced to $3,000 or less, the civil proceedings shall be tried before a Judge without a jury.

(4)If, in any civil proceedings to which this section applies, the defendant sets up a counterclaim, then, unless pursuant to this section the civil proceedings and the counterclaim are both to be tried before a Judge without a jury, the following provisions shall apply:

(a)on the application of either party made with the consent in writing of the other party, both the civil proceedings and counterclaim shall be tried before a Judge without a jury, or

1 Although the Judicature Act 1908 has now been repealed and replaced by the Senior Courts Act 2016, the present application is to be dealt with under the 1908 Act by…

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 Blomfield v Slater

Details

AGLC: Blomfield v Slater [2018] NZHC 1100
Case: [2018] NZHC 1100
Decision Date: 15 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blomfield v Slater involved a defamation claim brought by Matthew John Blomfield against Cameron John Slater, with the case scheduled to be heard before a jury. Blomfield applied for the case to be heard before a Judge alone under section 19A(5) of the Judicature Act 1908, due to the complexity of the issues involved in the case. The court considered the nature of the evidence and the pleadings, the technical requirements of claims based in defamation, and the fact that Slater was representing himself. The court found that the case involved difficult issues of mixed fact and law, and that it would be highly impracticable for a jury to consider the case.

The court therefore granted the application, and ordered that the case be tried by a Judge sitting without a jury. The court also noted that although Blomfield had been the successful party, little time was spent in argument dealing with the application, and that Slater had been required to relinquish his entitlement to a trial before a jury. The court therefore made no order as to costs. This decision highlights the importance of considering the practicality and complexity of a case when deciding whether to grant an application for a trial by Judge alone.

Orders