Currie v Doe - [2023] NZHC 1508

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-001805

[2023] NZHC 1508

UNDER THE Defamation Act 1992 and Part 18 of the High Court Rules.

IN THE MATTER OF

A declaration under Section 24 Defamation Act 1992 concerning the nature and status of certain web publications.

BETWEEN

ELIZABETH MAY CURRIE

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN DOE AND/OR JANE DOE, being the person or persons publishing certain

statements in this proceeding on the websites Laudafinem.com and Laudafinem.org Defendants

Hearing: 8 June 2022

Counsel:

K M Muller for Plaintiff

Judgment:

16 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

(Re: Formal Proof)

This judgment was delivered by me on 16 June 2023 at 3.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ………………………….

Solicitors: DB Law, Auckland

CURRIE v DOE [2023] NZHC 1508 [16 June 2023]

[1] The plaintiff seeks judgment by way of formal proof in terms of the pleading in her amended statement of claim dated 14 December 2020 except that:

(a)she seeks judgment against John Doe and/or Jane Doe only. The former second defendant, Mr Nottingham, was removed by my judgment dated 30 June 2022; and

(b)she seeks judgment only by declaration, not as to costs.`

Background

[2] This matter has a complicated background which is not germane to the formal proof but which I set out briefly for the record.

[3] The proceeding was issued on 2 August 2016. The only relief sought has been the declaration and (previously) an order for costs.

[4] There were originally three plaintiffs but two have since discontinued the proceeding. The background to the defamatory statements was a breakup of a relationship between Ms Currie and her former partner, subsequent prosecutions of her former partner and the involvement thereafter of Mr Nottingham who made threats against Ms Currie and one of the other original plaintiffs.

[5] The defamatory articles on the Laudafinem websites were mounted shortly after that. The original plaintiffs gave evidence that they believe Mr Nottingham was responsible for publication of the material. He denied that.

[6] Mr Nottingham was served with the proceeding although he was not named as the defendant. He then applied to be joined as a second defendant and was so joined by Downs J on 18 November 2016.

[7] Since 2016, Mr Nottingham has made a series of interlocutory applications, primarily aimed at striking out the statement of claim. He also brought appeals from decisions on almost all of those applications. In the process Mr Nottingham has filed numerous documents that are scandalous and/or defamatory of the plaintiff and others.

[8] On 3 March 2020, shortly before Mr Nottingham’s last unsuccessful application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, the other two original plaintiffs discontinued the proceeding, leaving Ms Currie as the sole plaintiff.

[9] Following the discontinuance by the other two plaintiffs, Ms Currie filed the December 2020 amended statement of claim focusing on the statements published about her. That led her…

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 Currie v Doe

Details

AGLC: Currie v Doe [2023] NZHC 1508
Case: [2023] NZHC 1508
Decision Date: 16 June 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Currie v Doe, Elizabeth May Currie, the plaintiff, sought a declaration under Section 24 of the Defamation Act 1992 concerning certain defamatory web publications. The defendants, identified as John Doe and/or Jane Doe, were responsible for publishing the defamatory statements on the websites Laudafinem.com and Laudafinem.org. The plaintiff sought a declaration to establish the defamatory nature of the publications and to obtain relief against the anonymous defendants. The High Court of New Zealand, Auckland Registry, presided over the case, with Hinton J delivering the judgment on 16 June 2023.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the web publications were defamatory and whether the court should grant the plaintiff's request for a declaration under Section 24 of the Defamation Act 1992. The court needed to determine the defamatory nature of the publications and whether relief could be granted against the anonymous defendants. Additionally, the court had to consider the plaintiff's request to add a fifth defamatory publication to her amended statement of claim.

The court found that the five web publications were defamatory of the plaintiff. The defamatory statements made definite charges of crime or dishonest, unethical, anti-social, or immoral conduct, going beyond words of general abuse. The court also found that the plaintiff did not have to prove the statements to be false, as they were defamatory in their natural and ordinary meaning. The court further ruled that the defendants, identified as John Doe and Jane Doe, could be held liable for the defamatory publications, as the defamation was occurring in New Zealand and affecting a New Zealand resident. The court granted the plaintiff's request for a declaration under Section 24 of the Defamation Act 1992, and the plaintiff abandoned the claim for costs, as any publisher who may be affected by the declaration was not a party to the proceeding.

In conclusion, the court granted the plaintiff's request for a declaration under Section 24 of the Defamation Act 1992, establishing the defamatory nature of the web publications. The court also granted the plaintiff's request to add the fifth defamatory publication to her amended statement of claim. The defendants, John Doe and Jane Doe, were held liable for the defamatory publications, and the plaintiff was awarded the relief sought in the form of a declaration.

Orders