Blomfield v Slater - [2016] NZHC 149

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-005218 [2016] NZHC 149

BETWEEN
MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD

Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER Defendant

Hearing: 10 February 2016

Counsel:

MG Beresford for Plaintiff
Defendant in person

Judgment:

10 February 2016

JUDGMENT (No 3) OF ASHER J

Solicitors/Counsel:
MG Beresford, Auckland.

Copy to: Defendant

BLOMFIELD v SLATER [2016] NZHC 149 [10 February 2016]

Introduction

[1] I have before me an application by the plaintiff Matthew Blomfield for orders holding the defendant Cameron Slater in contempt of court, requiring him to remove certain material and stories from his Whale Oil website, and seeking costs. Mr Blomfield asks that Mr Slater be imprisoned for his contempt.

[2] Mr Slater, who appears for himself, opposes the application on the basis that he has not committed any contempt of court.

[3] The proceeding now has a long history. I do not propose traversing it, but it is covered in various judgments including Slater v Blomfield1 and Blomfield v Slater.2 In brief, Mr Slater is being sued for defamation by Mr Blomfield. The alleged defamation relates to 13 articles published on Mr Slater’s Whale Oil blog that refer to Mr Blomfield. One such blog post was entitled “Who really ripped off KidsCan?” It was alleged that business interests with which
Mr Blomfield was associated had defrauded a charitable trust for children. Mr Blomfield claims that the articles assert that he was a thief, as well as dishonest, dishonourable, a party to fraud, involved in criminal conspiracy, bribery, deceit, perjury, conversion, laying of false complaints, drug dealing and making pornography. He alleges that these assertions are entirely false.

[4] Mr Slater admits publishing the articles in question but says they are not defamatory. He seeks to raise the defences of truth and honest opinion.

[5] In my judgment of 17 September 2015, I dealt with a number of detailed allegations of contempt where it was asserted that Mr Slater had published articles and comments in breach of an undertaking not to so publish. I held that number of articles and postings did breach the undertaking and were in contempt of court.3 I
ordered that the material posted in breach of the undertaking be removed.

1      Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221, [2014] 3 NZLR 835 at [1]–[16].
2      Blomfield v Slater [2015] NZHC 2239 at [1]–[6].
3      Blomfield v Slater, above n 2, at [12]–[34] and [62].

[6] The undertaking that forms the basis of the contempt application was an undertaking given to the Manukau District Court on 1 October 2012. At a conference on that date before Judge Charles Blackie, Mr Slater’s counsel at the time, Mr Jordan Williams, provided the following oral undertaking on behalf of Mr Slater:4

… that there would be no further publication concerning Mr Blomfield and/or his associates on the blog site or any other blog site under the control of Mr Slater or at the behest of Mr Slater, other than that might relate to information that…

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 149
Case: [2016] NZHC 149
Decision Date: 10 February 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Blomfield v Slater was a proceeding in the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, where Matthew Blomfield sought orders against Cameron Slater for contempt of court, removal of certain material from Slater's Whale Oil website, and costs. Slater, who appeared in person, opposed the application, asserting that he had not committed any contempt. The dispute stemmed from 13 articles published on Slater’s Whale Oil blog, which Blomfield claimed were defamatory. Slater admitted publishing the articles but argued they were not defamatory and sought to raise the defences of truth and honest opinion.

The court was required to decide whether Slater's recent articles on his Whale Oil blog constituted contempt of court by breaching an earlier undertaking given to the Manukau District Court. The undertaking specified that Slater would not publish any further material concerning Blomfield or his associates on his blog site. The legal issues included interpreting the scope and duration of the undertaking, determining whether the articles breached the terms of the undertaking, and deciding on the appropriate penalty for contempt.

The court found that the first article, which had been previously identified as in contempt, remained online despite the court's order to remove it. The court held that the continued posting of this article constituted a contempt of court. Regarding the three new articles, the court interpreted the undertaking to mean that Slater was prohibited from publishing any material concerning Blomfield or his associates connected to the defamatory articles. While the articles referred to Blomfield indirectly, the court held that only specific paragraphs needed to be removed. The court decided not to impose any penalty at that time and adjourned the application to allow Slater to make his publications compliant with the court's interpretation of the undertaking. The court also noted Slater's intention to apply to set aside the undertaking, although such an application could not be heard at that point.

Orders