Cato v Manaia Media Limited - [2022] NZHC 644

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2017-404-3091

[2022] NZHC 644

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: 9 March 2022 (by telephone)

Appearances:

S J Mills QC and E D Nilsson for the plaintiff S A McKenna and L Hadlow for the defendants

Judgment:

31 March 2022

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 March 2022 at 4:00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2022] NZHC 644 [31 March 2022]

Introduction

[1]The plaintiff, Ms Cato, sues the defendants in defamation.

[2] The defendants challenge the admissibility of one of Ms Cato’s briefs of evidence, an expert brief by Paul Collins. That brief is in replacement of an earlier brief by Mr Collins that I ruled inadmissible. The defendants say the replacement brief is not materially different from the first brief and is inadmissible for the same reasons that I ruled the first brief inadmissible.

The substantive proceeding

[3] Equestrian Sports New Zealand (ESNZ) is the national sports organisation for equestrian sports in New Zealand. In 2017, a senior New Zealand equestrian show jumping team toured Australia. Subsequently, members of the team made complaints to ESNZ against another member of the team, Katie Laurie, and against Ms Laurie’s father, Jeff McVean, who was the team’s chef d’equipe and coach.

[4] ESNZ convened a Judicial Committee to consider the complaints. The Committee directed the parties to try to settle the complaints at mediation. The parties attended a mediation in late November 2017, at which they settled the complaints. The settlement included agreeing to publish a statement recording the fact of the settlement and the steps agreed to by Mr McVean and Ms Laurie. The agreed statement records that the details of the settlement were otherwise confidential.

[5] Ms Cato is a barrister. She acted for the complainants in the mediation. On 30 November 2017, Ms Cato released the agreed statement to the iSpyHorses website and Show Circuit magazine, which are two equestrian media outlets. The statement was not sent to NZ Horse & Pony, another equestrian media outlet.

[6] Following Ms Cato’s release of the statement, for six days from 3–9 December 2017, NZ Horse & Pony posted on its website an article entitled What goes on tour, doesn’t stay on tour. The first defendant (Manaia Media Ltd) is the publisher and the second defendant (Ms Dixon) is the editor of NZ Horse & Pony. Ms Dixon and the third defendant (Ms Thompson) are the co-authors of the article.

[7] Ms Cato considered the article defamed her by suggesting she had acted unethically and unprofessionally in releasing the statement, without authority and instructions, “practically exclusively” to the iSpyHorses website, which is operated by her mother. Attempts to resolve Ms Cato’s…

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: [2022] NZHC 644
Decision Date: 31 March 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Kristin Pia Cato brought a defamation action against Manaia Media Limited, Rowan Dixon, and Jane Thompson. Cato alleged that an article published by the defendants in NZ Horse & Pony defamed her by suggesting she acted unethically and unprofessionally in releasing a statement about a mediation settlement. The defendants challenged the admissibility of an expert brief by Paul Collins, an expert on lawyers' ethics and professional conduct, submitted by Cato. The defendants argued that the replacement brief was not materially different from an earlier brief that was ruled inadmissible and thus should be excluded for the same reasons. The court examined whether the replacement brief was relevant and whether its probative value outweighed any prejudicial effect. The court found that the replacement brief was relevant to the gravity of the harm caused by the article and was not unfairly prejudicial. However, specific passages of the brief that contained inadmissible evidence of meaning were ruled inadmissible. The court rejected the defendants' challenge to the admissibility of the replacement brief as a whole but excluded certain passages.

The court ordered that the passages identified in paragraphs [39], [42], and [44] of the judgment are inadmissible and cannot be read. The defendants were granted an extension to serve any brief in response to Mr. Collins' brief. The plaintiff was awarded costs, with brief memoranda to be filed and served if costs could not be agreed.

Orders