Cato v Manaia Media Limited - [2023] NZHC 385

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-3091

[2023] NZHC 385

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: 1-18 August 2022

Appearances:

S Mills KC, R Butler and D Nilsson for the plaintiff F King and R Che Ismail for the defendants

Judgment:

3 March 2023

JUDGMENT OF ROBINSON J

[Public Interest Defence]

This judgment was delivered by me on 3 March 2023 at 10:00 am 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 385 [3 March 2023]

Introduction [1]

Background  [7]
Horse & Pony’s July 2017 article  [9]
The joint statement  [17]
Publishing the joint statement  [21]
The plaintiff ’s social media comment  [24]
ESNZ’s 1 December 2017 statement  [25]
Horse & Pony’s enquiries of ESNZ  [26]
The defendants’ questions of the plaintiff  [29]
Third defendant’s questions for Ms Laurie/Ms McVean  [33]

The Article [37]

The jury’s verdict [42]

The Durie v Gardiner defence [44]

Is the subject matter of the Article a matter of public interest?  [45]
Pleadings  [48]
Submissions  [50]

Plaintiff ’s submissions [55]

Discussion [65]

Was the Article a responsible communication? [70]

(a)The seriousness of the allegation  [74]
(b)The degree of public importance  [80]
(c)The urgency of the matter  [82]
(d)The reliability of any source  [87]
(e)Was comment sought from the plaintiff and accurately reported?       [89]
(f)Tone of the publication  [96]

(g) Were the defamatory statements necessary to communicate on the matter of public interest? [99]
Conclusion [102]

Result [103]

Introduction

[1] New Zealand Horse & Pony (Horse & Pony) is an equestrian magazine published by the first defendant, Manaia Media Ltd (Manaia). Manaia also owns and operates the Horse & Pony website and administers its Facebook page. The second defendant, Ms Rowan Dixon, is the sole director and shareholder of Manaia. She is the editor of the Horse & Pony magazine and website and controls the Facebook page.

[2] The plaintiff brought defamation proceedings in respect of an article published on the Horse & Pony website on 3 December 2017 (Article). The third defendant, Ms Jane Thompson, wrote the Article.

[3] The defendants denied the plaintiff’s claim and elected trial by jury. They also pleaded the affirmative defence first recognised in New Zealand by the Court of Appeal in Durie v Gardiner.1 The defendants say the subject matter of the Article was of public interest; and their communication was responsible.2

[4] On 18 August 2022 the jury unanimously found that the Article bore all the meanings alleged by the plaintiff, and that those meanings were defamatory. It awarded the plaintiff compensatory damages of $225,000 and punitive damages of
$15,000.

[5] I recorded the jury’s verdict but at that stage I…

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: [2023] NZHC 385
Decision Date: 3 March 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cato v Manaia Media Limited involved defamation proceedings brought by Kristin Pia Cato against the defendants, Manaia Media Limited, Rowan Dixon, and Jane Thompson. Cato alleged that an article published on the Horse & Pony website on 3 December 2017 defamed her. The defendants denied the claim and pleaded the defence of public interest. The jury found that the article bore all the meanings alleged by Cato and that those meanings were defamatory. However, the trial judge, Robinson J, found that the defendants had not established the two elements of the public interest defence. As such, judgment was entered in accordance with the jury's verdict. The plaintiff was awarded general damages of $225,000 and punitive damages of $15,000. The plaintiff was also entitled to costs.

Orders