D v H - [2025] NZHC 988

ORDER PROHIBITING PUBLICATION OF NAMES OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE PARTIES.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2024-412-031

[2025] NZHC 988

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

D

Applicant

AND

H

Respondent

Hearing: 9 April 2025

Counsel:

Applicant in person

J W Cowan for Respondent

Judgment:

30 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE PAULSEN

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 April 2025 at 4.15 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

D v H [2025] NZHC 988 [30 April 2025]

[1] Ms D sued Ms H in the District Court alleging she had been defamed. Judge Tuohy entered summary judgment in favour of Ms H.1 Ms D appealed Judge Tuohy’s judgment. The appeal has not advanced due to procedural skirmishes. One of these relates to a 159-page interlocutory application filed by Ms D (the interlocutory application).

[2] A dispute arose whether Ms H had served her opposition to the interlocutory application within time. In a judgment of 19 September 2024 Associate Judge Lester held that Ms H had done so.2 Associate Judge Lester awarded Ms H costs on a 2B basis and ordered that if Ms D did not pay the costs within 15 working days her appeal would be stayed.3 The costs have not been paid. Accordingly, Ms D’s appeal is presently stayed.

[3]In the application before me, Ms D seeks orders:

(a)striking out Ms H’s notice of opposition to the interlocutory application;

(b)granting leave to appeal Associate Judge Lester’s judgment of 19 September 2024;

(c)granting a stay of the orders made by Associate Judge Lester pending her appeal;

(d)granting a stay of the District Court judgment; and

(e)that Ms H disclose arrangements she has used to maintain her participation in these proceedings.

[4]All the applications are opposed by Ms H.

1      D v H [2023] NZDC 26980. Pursuant to a non-publication order made in the District Court, the names adopted are those used for the purposes of an earlier judgment regarding this proceeding: D v H [2024] NZHC 2718.
2      D v H [2024] NZHC 2718.
3      At [29]–[30].

Background

[5] Ms D’s defamation claim arose from an incident at Te Pūkenga in Otago between her and Ms H on 4 August 2023. Ms D was then a student at Te Pūkenga. Ms H is a staff member. Ms H prepared a file note of the events that occurred, the contents of which formed the basis of Ms D’s defamation claim. In his judgment of 19 December 2023 Judge Tuohy entered summary judgment for Ms H on the basis that Ms D’s claim could not succeed.4

[6] Ms D’s notice of appeal from Judge Tuohy’s judgment did not provide a physical address for service as required by the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules).5 It stated, “Documents for service related to this appeal may be emailed to the following email address ...”.

[7] A telephone conference was…

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 D v H

Details

AGLC: D v H [2025] NZHC 988
Case: [2025] NZHC 988
Decision Date: 30 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

D v H was an appeal against a judgment in the District Court, which had entered summary judgment in favour of H on D's defamation claim. The appeal had been stayed due to procedural issues. In the present proceeding, D sought various orders, including to strike out H's notice of opposition to her interlocutory application, to grant leave to appeal, and for stays of certain orders. H opposed the application. The court considered whether there was an arguable error of law in Associate Judge Lester's decision that H's notice of opposition was filed within time. The court found no arguable error of law and concluded that even if there had been, the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed because the appeal had no prospect of success, there was no justification for delay, and the interests of justice would not be served by granting leave. The court also found no basis to grant the stay applications or to compel disclosure of H's arrangements for payment of her legal fees. The court dismissed D's application in its entirety and ordered that H was entitled to costs. The parties were invited to file submissions on the quantum of costs.

Orders