Blomfield v Slater - [2016] NZHC 210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-005218 [2016] NZHC 210

BETWEEN
MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD

Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER Defendant

Hearing: 16 February 2016

Counsel:

BG Beresford for Plaintiff
Defendant in person

Judgment:

18 February 2016

JUDGMENT (No 4) OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Thursday, 18 February 2016 at 3 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
MG Beresford, Auckland.

Copy to: Defendant

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2016] NZHC 210 [18 February 2016]

Introduction

[1] This judgment must be read in conjunction with my judgment of 10 February

2016, in which I found that four articles published by Mr Slater constituted breaches of the undertaking provided to the District Court on 1 October 2012.1 I adjourned the proceeding to give Mr Slater an opportunity to take action to make his publications compliant with the undertaking, as I had interpreted it. It is now necessary to give my final judgment on the contempt application, and to rule on costs.

[2] Mr Blomfield succeeded in establishing that Mr Slater had breached the undertaking; firstly in continuing to host on his website the first article, which had been the subject of an earlier judgment finding it in contempt,2 and second by referring to Mr Blomfield, albeit without naming him, in the three more recently published articles. He failed, however, in the submission that the three other articles which principally concerned third parties, constituted contempts. I found that the
bulk of those three articles, being written about persons other than Mr Blomfield, were not a breach of the undertaking.

[3] Given that Mr Slater has now removed all material that I have found to be in breach of the undertaking (which Mr Blomfield accepts), and given my finding that the three other articles were not in total a breach of the undertaking, Mr Beresford on Mr Blomfield’s behalf has withdrawn his submission that Mr Slater should be imprisoned. He submits that the appropriate penalty is a fine of $2,000.

The first article

[4] In relation to the first article Mr Slater submits that this was an understandable error of judgment on his part, based on his interpretation of my earlier judgment, and the ambit of the undertaking.

[5] In my view, continuing to publish the first article was plainly a breach of the undertaking in that it was pejorative and concerned Mr Blomfield. Although I

1 Blomfield v Slater [2016] NZHC 149.
2 Blomfield v Slater [2015] NZHC 2239.

previously found the publication to be a “minor” contempt, it was a contempt nevertheless. This was clear from my judgment. It was also a contempt of Court not to comply with the terms of my earlier judgment (regardless of the undertaking), since my earlier judgment ordered him to remove the article.

[6] Mr Blomfield has submitted variously that Mr Slater deliberately breaches Court undertakings or pushes publications as far as they can go, to test the boundaries of orders made.

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 [2016] NZHC 210
Case: [2016] NZHC 210
Decision Date: 18 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Blomfield v Slater, the High Court of New Zealand considered whether Cameron Slater breached an undertaking given to the court by publishing articles concerning Matthew Blomfield. The court found that Slater had breached the undertaking by continuing to publish the first article, which was pejorative and concerned Blomfield, despite a previous judgment ordering its removal. The court also found that Slater breached the undertaking by referring to Blomfield, without naming him, in three more recent articles. However, the court found that the three other articles, which principally concerned third parties, did not constitute a breach of the undertaking.

The court reasoned that there had to be an element of wilfulness or recklessness in the disobedience of a court order before the contempt jurisdiction would be invoked. The court found that Slater's conduct in continuing to publish the first article was reckless, and that the references to Blomfield in the three new articles were also reckless, given the prolonged campaign Slater had run against Blomfield. However, the court found that the unnamed references to Blomfield in the three articles were not sufficiently serious to be contempt. The court ordered that the offending paragraphs be removed and fined Slater $1,500 for the publication of the first article.

The court also considered the costs of the proceedings. The court found that Blomfield had succeeded in his application to the extent that he had obtained orders resulting in the removal of material adverse to him. However, the court found that Blomfield had failed in a significant aspect of his application, which took a considerable portion of the hearing time. The court proposed reducing the standard scale 2B costs that would otherwise be ordered by 40 per cent. The court ordered Slater to pay 60 per cent of scale costs, calculated on a 2B basis, together with reasonable disbursements.

Orders