Cato v Manaia Media Ltd - [2019] NZHC 440

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-003091

[2019] NZHC 440

BETWEEN
KRISTIN PIA CATO

Plaintiff

AND

MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED

First Defendant

ROWAN DIXON
Second Defendant

JANE THOMPSON

Third Defendant

Hearing: 17 December 2018 and 13 February 2019

Appearances:

S Mills QC (17 December only) and E Nilsson for the Plaintiff T Goatley and E Bello for the Defendants

Judgment:

13 March 2019

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

[Capability of meaning]

This judgment was delivered by me on 13 March 2019 at 4.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Counsel/Solicitors:
Lee Salmon Long, Auckland Stephen Mills QC, Auckland Bell Gully, Auckland

KRISTIN PIA CATO v MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED [2019] NZHC 440 [13 March 2019]

[1] The innocuously named Horse & Pony magazine has become, somewhat surprisingly, embroiled in defamation proceedings.

[2] The point at immediate issue is whether an article published in the magazine on 3 December 2017, on its website and Facebook page, is capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by the plaintiff.

[3] The article is titled, “What goes on tour, doesn't stay on tour”. The article has proven to be very aptly named.

Background – ‘What goes on tour, doesn't stay on tour’

[4]The plaintiff is a barrister, and a member of the equestrian community.

[5] The three defendants are the publisher and editor of Horse & Pony and the author of the article.

[6] The article dealt with complaints made to the judicial committee of Equestrian Sports New Zealand (ESNZ), which concluded with a private mediated settlement.

[7] The complaints had been made by members of a senior New Zealand show jumping team which toured Australia in March and April 2017, against the team’s chef d’equipe, Mr McVean, and his daughter, Ms Laurie, a member of the team.

[8]The plaintiff acted as counsel for the complainant members of the team.

[9] The mediated settlement terms required Mr McVean to not hold any role with Jumping NZ, and Ms Laurie acknowledged unacceptable conduct and apologised.

[10] The plaintiff says that the settlement statement was released by her on her clients’ instructions for publication on the websites of iSpyHorses and Show Circuit magazine, two well-known equestrian media outlets. It was not released to Horse & Pony.

[11] Mr McVean and Ms Laurie have a high profile within the equestrian community and so the complaints and subsequent settlement have attracted significant comment.

[12] The primary thrust of the Horse & Pony article is about the way the complaints were dealt with by the sport’s governing body. The author is critical of the lack of control by ESNZ over what was seen to be a regulatory matter, and in particular over the matter having been resolved in a private mediation. The author is obviously concerned about the outcome of the mediation and the potential consequential loss to the New Zealand equestrian community of Ms Laurie.

[13] The sole focus of the…

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 Ltd 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: [2019] NZHC 440
Decision Date: 13 March 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Kristin Pia Cato brought defamation proceedings against Manaia Media Limited, the publisher and editor of Horse & Pony magazine, and two other defendants. Cato, a barrister and member of the equestrian community, sought relief over an article published in the magazine titled "What goes on tour, doesn't stay on tour". The article discussed complaints made to the judicial committee of Equestrian Sports New Zealand, which concluded with a private mediated settlement. Cato, acting as counsel for the complainant members of the team, alleged that certain parts of the article defamed her by suggesting she acted unethically in releasing a damaging settlement statement, misused her position as a lawyer, and breached confidentiality provisions.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the article was capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded by Cato, and if so, whether those meanings were capable of being defamatory. The Court applied well-established principles, determining whether a reasonable reader could regard the words as bearing the pleaded meanings in an objective manner. The Court found that the article could bear some of the defamatory meanings pleaded by Cato, specifically that she was responsible for releasing a damaging statement and may have breached confidentiality provisions in the mediation agreement. However, the Court found that other pleaded meanings, such as that Cato misused her position as a lawyer or acted without her clients' consent, were not available.

The Court ordered Cato to re-plead her statement of claim to properly particularise the remaining pleaded meanings and context. The Court also expressed the view that the case should now be tried to determine whether the article was, in fact, defamatory.

Orders