Exley v NZME Publishing Limited

NOTE: PUBLICATION OF NAME, ADDRESS, OCCUPATION OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF COMPLAINANT PROHIBITED BY S 203 OF THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ACT 2011. SEE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 76/2023
[2023] NZSC 136

BETWEEN	DAMON EXLEY Applicant
AND	NZME PUBLISHING LIMITED First Respondent
THE KING Second Respondent

Court:	Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ
Counsel:	L C Ord, S S Pohiva and E T Blincoe for Applicant T C Goatley and K M Wilson for First Respondent M J Lillico for Second Respondent
Judgment:	19 October 2023

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

ALeave to appeal is granted (NZME Publishing Ltd v E [2023] NZCA 258).

BThe approved question is whether the Court of Appeal was correct to quash the High Court takedown order.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

This Court issued a judgment in July 2023 partially suspending the operation of the Court of Appeal’s order quashing the High Court’s takedown order until the applicant’s application for leave to appeal could be dealt with.[1] The applicant’s trial has since concluded. As a result, the question of the takedown order has become moot in this particular case. We nonetheless consider that it raises a point of public importance and, as such, leave to appeal has been granted.
[1]E (SC 76/2023) v NZME Publishing Ltd [2023] NZSC 85 (Glazebrook, O’Regan and Ellen France JJ).

Solicitors:
Ord Legal, Wellington for Applicant
Bell Gully, Auckland for First Respondent
Crown Law Office, Wellington for Second Respondent

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Exley v NZME Publishing Limited involves a legal dispute where the applicant, Damon Exley, sought leave to appeal a decision made by the Court of Appeal which had quashed an earlier order from the High Court requiring the removal of certain content. The first respondent, NZME Publishing Limited, and the second respondent, the King, were the parties against whom the applicant's appeal was directed. This appeal centred on the validity of the High Court's takedown order, which had been overturned by the Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court of New Zealand, comprising Glazebrook, O’Regan, and Ellen France JJ, was tasked with determining whether the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the takedown order was correct.

The central legal issue before the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was justified in its decision to nullify the High Court's takedown order. This question encompassed a detailed examination of the principles governing the removal of online content, particularly in the context of defamation laws and the implications for freedom of expression. The court had to assess the balance between protecting individuals' reputations and upholding the public's right to access information. The case presented a significant point of public interest, as it involved the interpretation and application of laws that intersect with both personal rights and media freedom.

In its judgment, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, acknowledging that although the specific issue of the takedown order had become moot due to the conclusion of the applicant's trial, it still held considerable public importance. The Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision to quash the High Court's order was indeed correct, thereby affirming the lower court's judgment. This decision highlighted the importance of judicial review in ensuring that takedown orders are both legally sound and proportionate. The Supreme Court's ruling underscored the necessity for a careful and balanced approach when addressing disputes involving online content and personal reputation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established