Legal Research
Cases
Blomfield v Slater

Blomfield v Slater

Case [2017] NZHC 1654 18 July 2017

Defamation

Breach of Contract

Discovery & Disclosure

Jurisdiction

Res Judicata

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV 2013-404-5218 [2017] NZHC 1654

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER Defendant

Hearing: 6 July 2017

Counsel:

F Geiringer for Plaintiff
C J Slater, in person, Defendant
(D Nottingham as McKenzie Friend for Mr Slater)

Judgment:

18 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF HEATH J

This judgment was delivered by me on 18 July 2017 at 4.00pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Bytalus Law, Auckland (S Gloyn) Counsel:
F Geiringer, Wellington
Copy to:
Defendant in person

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2017] NZHC 1654 [18 July 2017]

The applications

[1] Mr Blomfield and Mr Slater are locked in battle over defamation proceedings that were issued by Mr Blomfield, in the District Court at Manukau, as long ago as
15 June 2012. They were transferred to this Court on 19 December 2014.1 No

hearing date has yet been allocated. A series of procedural skirmishes have conspired against that.

[2] Mr Slater has applied to strike out Mr Blomfield’s proceeding on grounds of delay. Mr Blomfield applies for further discovery, on an “unless” basis. Both applications are opposed. Mr Blomfield contends that the delay in prosecuting his claim to hearing has largely been caused by Mr Slater’s own actions.

Background

[3] Until 9 April 2008, Mr Blomfield was a director of Hell Zenjiro Ltd. That company owned several outlets for the Hell Pizza franchise. During the same period, Mr Blomfield also provided marketing services to Hell Pizza.

[4] On 9 April 2008, Hell Zenjiro was put into liquidation. In 2010, Mr Blomfield was adjudged bankrupt. Subsequently, an order was made prohibiting him from being involved as a director, or in the management, of a company. Mr Blomfield has since been discharged from bankruptcy.

[5] In 2012, Mr Slater operated a website known as “Whale Oil”, and published regular blogs from its domain, In May 2012, Mr Slater wrote and published on that website a blog linking Mr Blomfield with a charity known as “KidsCan”. It was entitled “Who really ripped off KidsCan?” Mr Blomfield claims that statements contained in that publication were defamatory of him.

[6] A second blog was published on the Whale Oil website on the same day. It

was entitled: “Knowing Me, Knowing You – Matt Blomfield”. A further 13 articles

1 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 3272.

were published between 3 May and 6 June 2012, all of which Mr Blomfield alleges were defamatory.

[7] Mr Blomfield claims that these articles allege that he had conspired to steal charitable funds, was a thief, dishonest, dishonourable, a party to fraud, involved in criminal conspiracy, bribery, deceit, perjury, conversion, had laid false complaints, drug dealer and had made pornography. Mr Blomfield also takes issue with being described as a psychopath, a criminal and a “cock smoker”.2

[8] Wide-ranging submissions were made by both Mr Geiringer, for Mr Blomfield, and Mr Slater, in person. With no disrespect…

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 [2017] NZHC 1654
Case: [2017] NZHC 1654
Decision Date: 18 July 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blomfield v Slater is a defamation proceeding initiated by Mr. Matthew Blomfield against Mr. Cameron Slater, a blogger, over a series of blog posts published on Slater’s website, Whale Oil. The case was transferred to the High Court of New Zealand from the District Court at Manukau. Blomfield claims that Slater’s posts, published in 2012, defamed him by alleging he was involved in criminal activities such as fraud, theft, and drug dealing, among other things. Slater has applied to strike out the proceeding on grounds of delay, while Blomfield seeks further discovery on an "unless" basis. The court was required to decide whether the proceeding should be struck out due to delay and whether further discovery was warranted.

In addressing these issues, the court first considered Mr. Blomfield's application for further discovery. Blomfield sought additional documents that were allegedly not disclosed by Slater. The court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the documents might exist and that further discovery was proportionate. Consequently, the court ordered Slater to file and serve a further affidavit clarifying the status of the documents in question. However, the court refrained from making an "unless" order at that stage, deciding that it would reconsider this issue at the next case management conference if Slater did not comply with the order.

Regarding Slater’s application to strike out the proceeding, the court noted that the primary cause of delay was the resolution of the legal issue regarding the applicability of the Evidence Act 2006’s protection of journalists’ sources to bloggers. The court held that the delay was not attributable to Blomfield and dismissed Slater’s application to strike out. The court also found that the proceeding did not constitute an abuse of process warranting its dismissal. Instead, the court directed a case management conference to ensure the proceeding was readied for trial.

The court concluded by making an order on Blomfield’s application for further discovery, dismissing Slater’s application to strike out, and setting directions for the next case management conference. Costs were reserved for further consideration.

Orders