Legal Research
Cases
Currie v Doe

Currie v Doe

Case [2022] NZHC 1547 30 June 2022

Defamation Act 1992

Limitation Act

Statutory Interpretation

Strike-Out Applications

Debarring Orders

Defamation Law

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

JUDGMENT FOR PUBLICATION: SEE ADDENDUM

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-1805

[2022] NZHC 1547

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

First Defendant

DERMOT NOTTINGHAM

Second Defendant

Hearing: 26 April 2022

Appearances:

K M Muller for Plaintiff

No appearance for First Defendants Second Defendant in person

Judgment:

30 June 2022

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

[Redacted version]

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 June 2022 at 5.00 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

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

ELIZABETH MAY CURRIE v DOE [2022] NZHC 1547 [30 June 2022]

[1] This judgment addresses an application (and various other unrelated applications) by the second defendant, Mr Nottingham, to strike out the amended statement of claim and an application by the plaintiff, Ms Currie, to strike out the statement of defence. The plaintiff also applies for consequential orders debarring the second defendant from defending the proceeding, removing him as a party and listing the proceeding for formal proof. She seeks costs.

Background

[2] In 2016 Ms Currie and two co-plaintiffs issued this proceeding under the Defamation Act 1992 and Part 18 of the High Court Rules against unnamed publishers cited as John and/or Jane Doe.

[3]The proceeding seeks only declaratory relief (and costs), not damages.

[4][Redacted]

[5] GoDaddy.com LLC, the Arizona company hosting the website, refused to take down the publications without a Court order. Mr Nottingham was one of the parties served with the proceeding because of a possible interest in it. Unusually it was Mr Nottingham who then applied to be joined as a party and his joinder was opposed by the plaintiffs.

[6] Before me Mr Nottingham advised that he came to know of Ms Currie and her former partner, Mr Crann because, where he considers it appropriate, he steps in to assist a party to a dispute.1 In this case, a cousin of Mr Crann asked him to investigate matters following a separation between Mr Crann and Ms Currie. Mr Nottingham was satisfied that Mr Crann needed assistance. It seems the publication followed Mr Nottingham’s “investigations”.

1 He advised that in other cases he has assisted parties charged with murder and rape where he considered that appropriate.

[7] Since the proceeding was issued, the two co-plaintiffs have discontinued leaving Ms Currie as the sole plaintiff. The only party served who has taken any steps in the proceeding seems to have been Mr Nottingham. The amended statement of claim now makes specific allegations of defamation against him as the owner of or a publisher on the Lauda Finem website.

[8] Although Mr Nottingham was joined as a defendant on 18 November 2016, the various interlocutory applications and appeals taken primarily by him over 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 Currie v Doe

Details

AGLC: Currie v Doe [2022] NZHC 1547
Case: [2022] NZHC 1547
Decision Date: 30 June 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Currie v Doe [2022] NZHC 1547 is a defamation case in which the plaintiff, Ms Currie, seeks a declaration from the court that certain web publications are defamatory of her. The defendants are the publishers of the website, Lauda Finem, and Mr Nottingham, who was joined as a defendant after he applied to be joined as a party. The case involves various interlocutory applications, including applications by the defendants to strike out the plaintiff's statement of claim and by the plaintiff to strike out the defendants' statement of defence. The court dismissed the defendants' applications and granted the plaintiff's application to strike out the statement of defence. The court also ordered that Mr Nottingham be debarred from defending and removed as a party to the proceedings. The court found that Mr Nottingham's conduct of the case and his defence were an abuse of the court process and amounted to harassment of Ms Currie and her counsel. The court ordered Mr Nottingham to pay costs on a 2B basis.

The legal issues in the case included whether the proceeding was time-barred under the Limitation Act, whether the plaintiff had committed perjury, and whether the defendants' statement of defence complied with the rules of pleading. The court found that the proceeding was not time-barred, that there was no evidence of perjury, and that the defendants' statement of defence was defective in numerous ways and should be struck out. The court also found that Mr Nottingham's conduct of the case and his defence were an abuse of the court process and amounted to harassment of Ms Currie and her counsel. The court ordered that Mr Nottingham be debarred from defending and removed as a party to the proceedings. The court ordered Mr Nottingham to pay costs on a 2B basis.

Orders