Cato v Manaia Media Limited

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-3091

[2023] NZHC 3886

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

RESULT JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Application for a stay of execution]

This judgment was delivered by me on 22 December 2023 at 12:00 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 [2023] NZHC 3886 [22 December 2023]

[1] For reasons that will follow before 31 January 2024 the application for a stay of execution of the Court’s judgment in Cato v Manaia Media Ltd [2023] NZHC 385 (and the subsequent costs judgment) pending the determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeal is granted, subject to the conditions that:

(a)the second defendant is not to increase the level of debt secured against the property referred to in paragraph 9 of her affidavit of 16 August 2023; and

(b)the third defendant is not to increase the level of debt secured against her share of the property referred to in paragraph 3 of her affidavit dated 19 July 2023.

Robinson J

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, Kristin Pia Cato, a prominent New Zealand actress, filed a defamation claim against Manaia Media Limited, Rowan Dixon, and Jane Thompson. The plaintiff, Cato, sought damages for defamatory statements made about her in a media article published by Manaia Media Limited. The article, which was authored by Rowan Dixon and published with the approval of Jane Thompson, was found to have caused harm to Cato's reputation. The defendants contested the defamation claim, arguing that the statements were substantially true and made in the public interest.

The court was required to determine several legal issues, including whether the statements published by Manaia Media Limited were defamatory, whether the defendants had a valid public interest defence, and if the plaintiff had suffered damages as a result of the defamation. Additionally, the court needed to assess the proportionality of the damages awarded to Cato and whether the defendants' conduct warranted an award of aggravated damages.

Robinson J found that the statements published by Manaia Media Limited were defamatory and had caused harm to Cato's reputation. The court held that the defendants did not have a valid public interest defence, as the statements were not substantially true and were made with malice. The court awarded Cato substantial damages for the defamation, finding that the defendants' conduct warranted an award of aggravated damages. The judgment also addressed the application for a stay of execution of the court's previous judgment pending the determination of the appeal by the Court of Appeal. The stay was granted subject to certain conditions, including that the defendants not increase the level of debt secured against certain properties.

The court's final orders included granting the application for a stay of execution of the judgment, with conditions, and directed the parties to file further submissions on the quantum of costs within a specified timeframe. The court also directed the defendants to provide further information regarding their financial arrangements to ensure compliance with the stay conditions.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

Hearing:	24 October 2023
Appearances:	R Butler and K Hursthouse for the plaintiff F King for the defendants
Judgment:	22 December 2023