CrossFit Inc v Exercise Industry Association Ltd

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2014-409-000733

[2016] NZHC 1028

BETWEEN

CROSSFIT INC

Plaintiff

AND

EXERCISE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED

First Defendant

AND

R G BEDDIE

Second Defendant

AND

INTERNATIONAL CONFEDERATION OF REGISTERS FOR EXERCISE PROFESSIONALS LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing:

26 April 2016

Appearances:

D Salmon for First and Second Defendants (Applicants) A L Ringwood for Plaintiff (Respondent)

(C R Langstone, for Third Defendant, excused from the hearing)

Judgment:

18 May 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE

on interlocutory applications

Introduction

[1]    In 2014, Richard Beddie spoke to and communicated with representatives of the print and television media on a number of occasions. He spoke about issues arising through some training in the fitness industry. Statements made by Mr Beddie appeared in newspaper articles and in television programmes (and were reproduced on websites).

CROSSFIT INC v EXERCISE INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION LIMITED [2016] NZHC 1028 [18 May 2016]

[2]    The plaintiff (CrossFit) is an American corporation which provides fitness training services internationally and licenses associated intellectual property under the “CrossFit” brand.

[3]    In the newspaper articles and the television programmes, references were made to CrossFit.

[4]    CrossFit sues the defendants in defamation (three causes of action); injurious falsehood (one cause of action); and breaches of ss 9, 11 and 23, Fair Trading Act 1986 (pleaded as one cause of action).

[5]The defendants are respectively:

(a)First defendant – a company which trades as Exercise Association of New Zealand (EANZ).

(b)Second defendant (Mr Beddie) – the chief executive officer and sole director of EANZ, and chairman and director of the third defendant.

(c)Third defendant – a company which trades as the International Confederation of Registers for Exercise Professionals (ICREPS).

[6]    CrossFit sues all three defendants upon the basis that statements made by   Mr Beddie were made not only in his personal capacity but also in his capacities as chief executive officer of EANZ and chairman of ICREPS.

[7]    CrossFit alleges that in those two capacities, Mr Beddie promotes membership of the New Zealand Register of Exercise Professionals (NZREPs). CrossFit also alleges that CrossFit does not require CrossFit trainers to register as members of NZREPs.

The interlocutory applications

[8]EANZ and Mr Beddie pursue three applications, namely for orders:

(a)striking out CrossFit’s fifth cause of action (breaches of the Fair Trading Act);

(b)striking out CrossFit’s pleading of the meanings of particular statements made by Mr Beddie and alleged to be defamatory; and

(c)requiring CrossFit to give further and better particulars of unquantified allegations of damage.

[9]    I will refer to the applicants throughout as “the defendants” although the third defendant takes no part in this application.

Striking out pleadings

High Court Rule 15.1 and the general principles

[10]   High Court Rule 15.1 makes provision for orders striking out all or part of a pleading. In this case, the nature of the application is that the applicants assert, pursuant to r 15.1(1)(a), that neither the (defamatory) meanings pleaded by CrossFit nor the Fair Trading Act cause of action are reasonably arguable.

[11]   The general principles…