Bright v Town

[2016] NZHC 411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2014-404-3194 [2016] NZHC 411

UNDER	The Defamation Act 1992
BETWEEN	PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT Plaintiff
AND	STEPHEN TOWN Defendant

Hearing:	5 November 2015
Counsel:	No appearance for the Plaintiff W Akel and T J Walker for the Defendant
Judgment:	10 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... [1] The background to the defamation claim ..................................................................................... [10] Ms Bright’s statement of claim ...................................................................................................... [19] Mr Town’s statement of defence..................................................................................................... [27] No reply ............................................................................................................................................ [34] Mr Town’s evidence in support of his applications ...................................................................... [36] Ms Bright’s notice of opposition to the applications .................................................................... [45] Leave to apply for summary judgment ......................................................................................... [48] The issues to be determined............................................................................................................ [50]

Issue 1: Is Ms Bright’s notice under s 39 of the Defamation Act 1992 so lacking in particulars that it should be struck out? ........................................................................................................... [51]

Discussion and conclusions on issue 1 ......................................................................................... [65]

Issue 2: Is Ms Bright’s notice under s 41 of the Defamation Act 1992 so lacking in particulars that it should be stuck out?............................................................................................................. [72]

Discussion and conclusions on issue 2 ......................................................................................... [76]

PENELOPE MARY BRIGHT v STEPHEN TOWN [2015] NZHC 411 [10 March 2016]

Issue 3: (Whether or not Ms Bright’s s 41 notice is struck out), does Mr Town’s defence of

qualified privilege entitle him to summary judgment (or an order striking out the claims)?  [80] The law - summary judgment and defendants’ strike-out applications......................................... [80] Law on qualified privilege ............................................................................................................ [82] Submissions .................................................................................................................................. [93] Discussion and conclusions on issue 3 ....................................................................................... [102]

Issue 4: If Mr Town is not entitled to summary judgment, should Ms Bright be required to provide security for Mr Town’s costs in the proceeding? ...........................................................[110]

Submissions ................................................................................................................................ [116] Discussion and conclusions on issue 4 ....................................................................................... [124]

Orders ............................................................................................................................................ [135]

Introduction

[1]      Ms Bright describes herself as a full-time public watchdog, particularly on the  affairs  of  Auckland  Council  and  its  predecessor,  Auckland  City  Council. Mr Town is the Chief Executive of the Auckland Council (the Council).

[2]      Ms Bright   has   sued   Mr Town   for   damages   for   allegedly   defamatory statements made by Mr Town in a Press Release (the Press Release) authorised by him and issued by the Council on 10 October 2014.

[3]      Mr Town says that he has good defences to Ms Bright’s defamation claim on a number of grounds.   Relevant to this judgment, he says that he has a complete defence on the basis that the statements made in the Press Release were protected by qualified  privilege.     This  is  a  common  law  defence  based  generally  on  the proposition that the maker of the relevant statement had a duty to make it, or a legitimate interest in making it, and those to whom it was published had a corresponding interest in receiving it.

[4]      Mr Town now applies for summary judgment.   He says that it is clear that Ms Bright has no answer to the qualified privilege defence, and that the proceeding can be determined in his favour now.

[5]      The defence…