Du Claire v Palmer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2009-485-002638 [2012] NZHC 934

UNDER  the Defamation Act 1992, s 3(2) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1950 and s 16 of the Judicature Act 1908

BETWEEN  LYSETTE LILLIAN DU CLAIRE Plaintiff

ANDMATTHEW SIMON RUSSELL PALMER First Defendant

ANDCROWN LAW OFFICE Second Defendant

Hearing:         20-23 February 2012 and written submissions exchanged by 19 March

2012

Counsel:         Plaintiff in person

M McClelland and U Jagose for Defendants

Judgment:      7 May 2012

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday, 7 May 2012 at 4.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:

Crown Law, DX SP 20208, Wellington. Email:  [e-mail]

M McClelland, PO Box 10242, The Terrace, Wellington. Email:  [e-mail]

Copy to:

L du Claire, 7 Grant Road, Thorndon, Wellington 6011. Email:  [e-mail]

DU CLAIRE V PALMER HC WN CIV-2009-485-002638 [7 May 2012]

Table of Contents

Para No

Introduction  [1] Background  [3] First cause of action  [4]

Second cause of action  [27] Third cause of action  [32] Subsequent events    [34] Approach to the issues  [37] First cause of action: the 13 May 2009 letter  [39] Honest opinion  [48] Are the statement of opinion and not fact?  [49]

Are the statements based on facts that are true or not materially

different from the truth?  [54]

The background to the affidavit of documents  [60] The affidavit of documents – the events of 16 March 2009  [72] Miss du Claire’s later statements relating to the affidavit of documents     [87] Other matters  [94] Conclusion as to the true facts  [97]

Whether the opinion was genuine  [102] Conclusion on honest opinion  [108] Qualified privilege  [109] An occasion of qualified privilege?  [110]

Ill will?  [120] Conclusion on first cause of action  [124] Second cause of action: the 18 May 2009 e-mail  [125] Honest opinion

Are they statements of opinion and not fact?  [130]

Are the statements based on facts that are true or not materially

different from the truth?  [133] Whether the opinion was genuine  [140] Qualified privilege   [144] Third cause of action: the 25 August 2009 letter  [148] Honest opinion  [150] Qualified privilege  [154] Fourth and fifth causes of action: misfeasance in a public office  [160] Facts of the alleged misfeasance  [167] Assessment of the misfeasance allegations – was there malice?  [182]

Other allegations of misconduct/malice by Miss du Claire against

Dr Palmer  [186] Claims against Crown Law Office  [192] Loss  [194] Conclusion  [195] Suppression  [196] Result  [200] Costs  [201]

Introduction

[1]      In 2009 the plaintiff Lysette du Claire was employed as a solicitor in the Litigation Management Unit of the Inland Revenue Department. The first defendant, Matthew Palmer, was the Deputy Solicitor-General at the Crown Law Office.   On three   occasions   between   13   May   2009   and   25  August   2009,   Dr   Palmer communicated  to  the  Inland  Revenue  Department  concerns  that  he  had  about Miss du Claire’s actions as solicitor in an Inland Revenue Department proceeding in which Crown Law was involved.  He was critical of her, and set out proposed steps…