Legal Research
Cases
Christian v Bain

Christian v Bain

Case [2022] NZHC 3394 14 December 2022

Defamation

Responsible Communication

Honest Opinion

Defence of Responsible Communication

Joint Tortfeasor

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2019-404-001818

[2022] NZHC 3394

UNDER The Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

GRAHAME CHRISTIAN

Plaintiff

AND

MURRAY BAIN

Defendant

Hearing:
8-11 February 2022; 14-18 February 2022; 21-25 February 2022;

Written submissions 11 March 2022 and 1 April 2022

Appearances:

C T Patterson and E J Grove for the Plaintiff

J Dickson, D Dustan and A Cox for the Defendant

Judgment:

14 December 2022

JUDGMENT OF WALKER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 14 December 2022 at 11 am Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CHRISTIAN v BAIN [2022] NZHC 3394 [14 December 2022]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Protagonists [11]

The genesis of the Articles—an overview [20]

Events after publication [94]

Issues on liability [97]

Is Mr Bain responsible in law for the Articles?  [100]
Legal principles—responsibility for publication  [119]
Preliminary—credibility and reliability of evidence  [150]
Analysis of Mr Bain’s role  [172]

Meaning—do the articles bear the defamatory natural and ordinary meanings

complained of by Mr Christian?  [204]
Legal principles  [204]
The contest as to meaning  [215]
News Article  [217]
Respective arguments as to meaning  [233]
The Discount Allegations  [243]
The Clandestine Dumping Allegations  [246]
Conclusions as to meaning of first article  [248]
Feature Article  [260]

Is the defence of responsible communication on a matter of public interest available to Mr Bain? [276]

Legal principles [276]

Degree of public interest [290]

Verification steps [292]

Involvement of Mr Valintine and NZME [357]

Opportunity to respond/comment [359]

Editorial licence [374]
Conclusion on the defence of responsible communication [379]

Honest Opinion [383]

Result [392]

Costs [394]

[1] Grahame Christian complains of defamation in two articles published by NZME Publishing Ltd (NZME) in the Weekend Herald and other NZME media under the by-line of Michael Valintine. Mr Christian is a company director and businessman living in Whitianga. He is the founder of Smart Environmental Limited (Smart), a privately owned refuse and recycling company.

[2] NZME is the publisher of the New Zealand Herald (including the Weekend Herald), the Herald Online, Hawke’s Bay Today and Bay of Plenty Times. It published a front-page news article (the News Article) and feature article (the Feature Article) about Smart’s provision of services to Thames Coromandel District Council (TCDC) in the Weekend Herald on 3 August 2019 (together, the Articles). Both, with minor alterations, were available in the Herald Online. One was republished by NZME with minor alterations in the Hawkes Bay Today and Bay of Plenty Times.

[3] The full text of the Articles published in the weekend edition of the New Zealand Herald are annexed for ease of reference. On 8 August 2019, NZME deactivated the online Articles after contact from Smart’s solicitors. Initially on a temporary and “without prejudice” basis, the Articles were never reactivated. In the relatively brief period the Articles were available online, there were 3,382 unique browser views for 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.

Continue reading Christian v Bain

Details

AGLC: Christian v Bain [2022] NZHC 3394
Case: [2022] NZHC 3394
Decision Date: 14 December 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Grahame Christian, a businessman and director of Smart Environmental Limited, commenced defamation proceedings against Murray Bain, a former employee of Smart, in relation to two articles published by NZME Publishing Ltd in the Weekend Herald and other NZME media. Christian alleged that Bain was responsible for the defamatory articles. Bain argued that he was only a source for the articles and was not liable for the entire content. The court held that Bain's involvement in the investigation and his communications with the journalist, Michael Valintine, were significant enough to hold him responsible for the defamatory content in the articles. The court also found that the articles were responsible communications on a matter of public interest, and therefore, Christian's claim was dismissed. Bain was held to be a joint tortfeasor, but the court did not address the issue of damages as the claim was dismissed. Both parties were required to file memoranda on the question of costs if they could not agree on the matter.

Orders