Castillo v Ybanez - [2023] NZHC 1723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2023-404-76

[2023] NZHC 1723

UNDER A Facebook post

IN THE MATTER

of the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

NEIL BRINGAS CASTILLO

Plaintiff

AND

JERALD HULLEZA YBANEZ (aka JERALD “WOWIE” YBANEZ)

Defendant

Hearing: 14 June 2023

Appearances:

MSP Pang for the Plaintiff

No appearance for the Defendant

Judgment:

5 July 2023

JUDGMENT OF BECROFT J

This judgment was delivered by me on 5 July 2023 at 4pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Integris Law, Auckland, phoebe@ilfnz.com; paul@ilfnz.com;

CASTILLO v YBANEZ [2023] NZHC 1723 [5 July 2023]

Introduction

[1] Mr Neil Castillo (Mr Castillo) and Mr Jerald Ybanez (Mr Ybanez) are both Filipino New Zealanders who love basketball.

[2] Their shared basketball passion resulted in them establishing the Auckland United Basketball (AUB) organisation for South Auckland children and young people.

[3] Unfortunately, the pair have fallen out. Mr Castillo claims that Mr Ybanez defamed him on three separate occasions in July 2022:

(a)First, Mr Ybanez sent a message to the AUB Facebook group chat, which had over two dozen members. Mr Castillo says that in this message Mr Ybanez suggests, or at least implies, that he misappropriated AUB money. This message spread quickly amongst the group, despite it being removed within about half an hour.

(b)Second, in a Facebook message to a possible sponsor, Mr Eddie Katigbak (Mr Katigbak), which was removed within about 5 minutes. Mr Castillo says Mr Ybanez implies he had dishonest intentions in giving his personal bank account number to sponsors and not the AUB account number.

(c)Third, in a brief telephone conversation between Mr Ybanez and Mr Katigbak (again), where Mr Ybanez told Mr Katigbak that AUB had been dissolved because Mr Castillo was using AUB to profit from the money provided by parents.

[4]The matter has come before me for formal proof.

[5] I note that Mr Castillo only seeks a declaration under s 24 of the Defamation Act 1992 that Mr Ybanez is liable to him in defamation, together with solicitor/client costs.

Formal proof in these circumstances

[6] I remind myself that allegations of defamation by a member of the community against another are very serious. Equally, any defamation can have serious repercussions for a defamed person’s reputation and standing especially within his or her community. The Court must be vigilant, especially in Mr Ybanez’s absence, to ensure the allegations are properly proved.

[7] Mr Pang, counsel for Mr Castillo, has assured the Court, consistent with his obligations as an Officer of the Court in formal proof hearings, that there are no known defences available to Mr Ybanez. Mr Pang also says that there are no other relevant witnesses for the plaintiff’s case, other than those who have made affidavits for this formal proof hearing.

[8] The onus of proof is on the plaintiff and the standard of proof is on the balance of probabilities.1

Procedural history

[9] The statement of…

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 Castillo v Ybanez

Details

AGLC: Castillo v Ybanez [2023] NZHC 1723
Case: [2023] NZHC 1723
Decision Date: 5 July 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Castillo v Ybanez was heard in the High Court of New Zealand and involved a defamation claim brought by Neil Castillo against Jerald Ybanez. The dispute arose from a series of Facebook messages and a telephone conversation where Ybanez allegedly defamed Castillo in front of the Auckland United Basketball (AUB) community. Ybanez did not appear in court, and the case proceeded with formal proof. Castillo sought a declaration of liability under the Defamation Act 1992, along with solicitor/client costs. The court found that Ybanez's messages were defamatory as they suggested that Castillo misappropriated funds, had bad intentions, and was untrustworthy. The defamatory nature of the messages was established on the balance of probabilities. The court concluded that Ybanez was liable to Castillo in defamation and ordered that a declaration be made accordingly. Castillo was also entitled to seek solicitor/client costs, which were to be detailed in a memorandum to be filed by his solicitor.

Orders