Cato v Manaia Media Limited - [2024] NZHC 599

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-3091

[2024] NZHC 599

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

KRISTIN PIA CATO

Plaintiff

AND

MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED

First Defendant

ROWAN DIXON
Second Defendant

JANE THOMPSON

Third Defendant

Hearing: 24 October 2023

Appearances:

R Butler and K Hursthouse for the plaintiff F King for the defendants

Judgment:

22 December 2023

Reasons:

19 March 2024

REASONS JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Application for a stay of execution]

This judgment was delivered by me on 19 March 2024 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Lee Salmon Long, Auckland
McKenna King Dempster, Hamilton

Counsel:S Mills KC, Auckland R Butler, Auckland

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2024] NZHC 599 [22 December 2023]

Introduction

[1] On 22 December 2023, I issued a results judgment granting the defendants’ application for a stay of execution of this Court’s judgment in Cato v Manaia Media Limited & Ors1 (and the costs judgment, then reserved), pending determination of their substantive appeal. The stay was subject to the condition that the second and third defendants are not to increase the levels of debt secured against property to which they each refer in their supporting affidavits. These are the reasons.

Background

[2] Following the dismissal of the defendants’ public interest defence, and in accordance with the jury’s verdicts, I entered judgment against the defendants, requiring them to pay $240,000 in damages (general damages of $225,000 and punitive damages of $15,000), together with costs. The costs judgment was reserved at the time of hearing the stay application. The plaintiff sought costs and disbursements of $428,121.60, whilst the defendants said these should not exceed
$100,347.35. So, the judgment debt would be at least $340,347.35, and up to
$668,121.60.

Ms Dixon

[3] The second defendant is the sole director and shareholder of the first defendant, Manaia Media Limited. Ms Dixon filed an affidavit deposing that if the judgment is enforced against Manaia Media Limited, it would likely be liquidated and that it is unlikely a liquidator would pursue the appeal.

[4] In terms of her personal circumstances, Ms Dixon deposed that the only personal asset she and her partner own that is capable of satisfying the judgment debt is their family home in which they live together with their son. She says they have approximately $560,000 equity in the property but that, if they sold it to pay the judgment, they would be unable to replace it unless they are successful on appeal.

1 Cato v Manaia Media Ltd & Ors [2023] NZHC 385.

[5] Ms Dixon says that she and her partner are unable to extend their mortgage any further. Ms Dixon says she also owes a significant debt to legal aid in relation to these proceedings, as well as to her former solicitors.

[6] In response, the plaintiff has filed an affidavit from a litigation support assistant employed by her solicitors to show…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cato v Manaia Media Limited and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2024] NZHC 599
Decision Date: 22 December 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over by His Honour Judge Robinson, addressed an application for a stay of execution of judgment in the case of Cato v Manaia Media Limited. The plaintiff, Kristin Pia Cato, sought damages for defamation against the defendants, Manaia Media Limited, Rowan Dixon, and Jane Thompson. The Court had previously found in favour of the plaintiff, awarding $240,000 in damages and reserving the costs judgment. The defendants sought a stay of execution pending their appeal to the Court of Appeal. The key legal issues were whether the stay should be granted and, if so, under what conditions.

The Court considered the legal principles governing the stay of execution under the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, focusing on the need to balance the successful party's right to the fruits of their judgment against the unsuccessful party's right to pursue an appeal. Factors considered included the strength of the appeal, the effect on third parties, the novelty and importance of the questions involved, and the overall balance of convenience. Counsel for the plaintiff argued against the stay, emphasizing that the appeal would not be rendered nugatory and that the defendants were not genuinely impecunious. The defendants, on the other hand, highlighted the novelty of the public interest defence and the importance of the issues of freedom of the press and reporting.

Judge Robinson found that while the plaintiff was entitled to the fruits of her judgment, the defendants' evidence suggested that they would need to sell their family homes to satisfy the judgment debt, making the overall balance of convenience favour the stay. The Court granted the stay of execution, subject to conditions that neither the second nor the third defendant increase the levels of debt secured against their respective properties.

Orders