Bright v Town - [2017] NZHC 141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-3194 [2017] NZHC 141

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT Plaintiff

AND

STEPHEN TOWN Defendant

Hearing: 20 May 2016

Counsel:

No appearance for the Plaintiff
W Akel and T J Walker for the Defendant

Judgment:

13 February 2017

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

Introduction

[1] In a judgment given on 10 March 2016 in this defamation case, I directed the plaintiff (Ms Bright) to provide certain further particulars of a notice she had given under s 39 and s 41 of the Defamation Act 1992 (the Act). I adjourned an application Mr Town had made for summary judgment based on the defence of qualified privilege, pending service of the further particulars of the s 39 and s 41 notice. I dismissed an alternative application made by Mr Town for security for his
costs.1

[2] In adjourning Mr Town’s application for summary judgment, I allowed Mr Town a period of ten working days after service of Ms Bright’s amended particulars notice to file any memorandum he may wish to file asking for his applications to strike out the particulars notice, and for summary judgment, to be
brought back on for hearing.

1 Bright v Town [2016] NZHC 411.

BRIGHT v TOWN [2017] NZHC 141 [13 February 2017]

[3] Ms Bright filed notices setting out further particulars of her s 39 and s 41 notice within the time allowed in my judgment of 10 March 2016, and Mr Town filed a memorandum asking for his strike out/summary judgment applications to be brought back on for hearing. Mr Town and Ms Bright both filed further written submissions on the resumed hearing.

[4] The resumed hearing took place on 20 May 2016. As with the hearing on

5 November 2015, Ms Bright elected not to appear.

[5] After the 20 May 2016 hearing, Mr Town sought leave to file brief supplementary submissions directed to the Court of Appeal decision in Alexander v Clegg,2 an authority which had not been referred to by either party in their submissions. By minute dated 19 June 2016 I allowed each party to file brief supplementary submissions, limited to the effect of Alexander v Clegg on the issues presently before the court. I have subsequently received and considered these
supplementary submissions.

[6] I now give judgment on Mr Town’s applications to strike out Ms Bright’s s 39 and s 41 notices (as supplemented by the further particulars supplied by her on
31 March 2016), and for summary judgment.

Background — the defamation proceeding

[7] The background of Ms Bright’s defamation claim is set out in my judgment given on 10 March 2016, and it is not necessary to repeat in this judgment everything that was said there. But in brief summary, Ms Bright (who describes herself as a fulltime public watchdog, particularly on the affairs of the Auckland Council) has sued Mr Town (the Chief Executive of the Council) for damages for allegedly defamatory statements…

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 Bright v Town

Details

AGLC: Bright v Town [2017] NZHC 141
Case: [2017] NZHC 141
Decision Date: 13 February 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Associate Judge Smith delivered a judgment on 13 February 2017, dismissing Penelope Mary Bright's defamation claim against Stephen Town, the Chief Executive of Auckland Council. The plaintiff, Ms Bright, alleged that defamatory statements made by Mr Town in a press release were defamatory. The press release was issued in response to Ms Bright's refusal to pay her rates, which led to the Council's attempt to recover the outstanding amount through the courts. The key issue in the case was whether Mr Town's press release was issued on an occasion of qualified privilege and, if so, whether the plaintiff had provided adequate particulars to rebut this defence. The court found that Mr Town's press release was indeed issued on an occasion of qualified privilege, as it was in response to public attacks made by Ms Bright against him and the Council. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient particulars to rebut the defence of qualified privilege, and accordingly, the proceeding was determined summarily in Mr Town's favour. The court entered summary judgment for Mr Town and dismissed Ms Bright's defamation claim.

Orders