Dooley v Smith - [2012] NZHC 529

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND GREYMOUTH REGISTRY

CIV-2009-418-125 [2012] NZHC 529

BETWEEN FRANCIS THOMAS DOOLEY Plaintiff

ANDRAYMOND BRUCE SMITH First Defendant

ANDMOHAMMED SHAHADAT Second Defendant

Hearing: 27-29 February - 1,2,5 March 2012

Counsel: R K P Stewart and J P M Scott for plaintiff
R B Smith in person
M Shahadat in person

Judgment: 26 March 2012

JUDGMENT OF LANG J

[on application for declaration under s 24(1) Defamation Act 1992]

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 March 2012 at 4 pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

FRANCIS THOMAS DOOLEY V RAYMOND BRUCE SMITH HC GRY CIV-2009-418-125 [26 March 2012]

INDEX

Factual background [4]
Some observations about aspects of the evidence [45]

Mr Dooley’s evidence
Mr Trousselot’s evidence
Mr Clayton’s evidence
Mr Bromley & Mr Madgwick’s evidence

[46] [71] [76] [84]

Defamation: General principles [92]
Issues [94]

A. First cause of action – the statements made by Mr Smith to the Greymouth Star newspaper on 1 October 2007

[96]

Do the statements have any of the meanings pleaded by Mr Dooley? [97] Are the established meanings defamatory of Mr Dooley? [113] Is Mr Smith entitled to rely upon any of the affirmative defences
based on truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege?

Truth
Honest opinion
Did Mr Smith genuinely hold the opinions
Qualified privilege

[116] [119] [129] [148]

Application of the Lange principles to the present case [173]

Were Mr Smith’s statements predominantly motivated by ill will
towards Mr Dooley?

[187]

Did Mr Smith take improper advantage of the occasion of privilege? [200]
Result: first cause of action [208]

B. The second cause of action against Mr Smith - republication of his earlier comments to Ms Scanlon of the Westport News on 5
October 2007

[209]

C. Third cause of action – the claim against Mr Shahadat [220] Do the statements have any of the meanings pleaded by Mr Dooley? [221] Is Mr Shahadat entitled to rely upon the defences of truth, honest
opinion and/or qualified privilege?

Truth
Honest opinion
Did Mr Shahadat genuinely hold his opinions? Qualified privilege
Was Mr Shahadat predominantly motivated in making his statements by ill will towards Mr Dooley?
Did Mr Shahadat take improper advantage of the occasion of privilege?

[245] [247] [251] [259] [261]

[271]

Result [275] Declaration [276] Costs [277]

[1] In this proceeding Mr Dooley sues Mr Smith and Mr Shahadat in defamation. He contends that each made defamatory statements about him to journalists employed by two West Coast newspapers in early October 2007. As a consequence, he seeks a declaration under s 24(1) of the Defamation Act 1992 (“the Act”) that each defendant is liable to him in defamation.

[2] Mr Smith and Mr Shahadat accept that they made the statements in question, and they also accept that the statements referred to Mr Dooley. They deny, however, that the statements have the defamatory meanings alleged by Mr Dooley. They also say that they are entitled to rely on the affirmative defences…

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 Dooley v Smith

Details

AGLC: Dooley v Smith [2012] NZHC 529
Case: [2012] NZHC 529
Decision Date: 26 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiff, Francis Thomas Dooley, sued the defendants, Raymond Bruce Smith and Mohammed Shahadat, for defamation. The defendants made statements about the plaintiff to journalists employed by two West Coast newspapers in early October 2007. The plaintiff sought a declaration under s 24(1) of the Defamation Act 1992 that the defendants were liable to him in defamation. The defendants admitted that they made the statements in question, and that the statements referred to the plaintiff. They denied, however, that the statements had the defamatory meanings alleged by the plaintiff. They also said that they were entitled to rely on the affirmative defences of truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. The court found that the plaintiff had established all but one of the pleaded meanings. Each of those meanings was clearly defamatory, in the sense that each of them would tend to lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right thinking members of society generally. To the extent that the defendants' statements implied that the plaintiff had denied the existence of a document when he knew that it existed, they were also false statements about the plaintiff to his discredit. The court found that the defendants had not established any of the affirmative defences upon which they relied. The court made a declaration under s 24(1) of the Defamation Act 1992 that the defendants were liable to the plaintiff in defamation. The defendants must pay the plaintiff's costs on a solicitor-client basis unless the court orders otherwise.

Orders