Fam v Nguyen - [2025] NZSC 151

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI O AOTEAROA

SC 92/2025
[2025] NZSC 151

BETWEEN	JULIE FAM Applicant
AND	NGUYEN THI THANH HA First Respondent DANG SON DINH Second Respondent MAI THI PHUONG PHAM Third Respondent MINH NGUYEN Fourth Respondent

Court:	Ellen France, Williams and Kós JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person F E Geiringer and S J Price for First Respondent No appearance for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment:	7 November 2025

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

The applicant, Julie Fam, along with the second to fourth respondents, was found liable in defamation proceedings brought by Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha, the first respondent in the present application.[1] An award of $100,000 damages was made against the applicant.
[1]Nguyen v Dang [2024] NZHC 2358 (Gordon J) [HC judgment].
The applicant filed a notice of appeal from the High Court decision in the Court of Appeal on 23 September 2024. On 23 December 2024 the applicant sought, and was granted, an extension of time to 22 January 2025 to file the case on appeal. The applicant took no steps. The appeal was deemed abandoned on 23 January 2025. Subsequently, on 3 February 2025, she sought a further extension of time. The Court of Appeal declined to grant an extension of time.[2] The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of the Court of Appeal declining to grant an extension of time.

Background

[2]Fam v Nguyen [2025] NZCA 352 (Courtney and Palmer JJ) [CA judgment].

The facts are set out in the High Court judgment. Relevantly, the Court said this:[3]
[1]The plaintiff, Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha (known as Ha Nguyen), is a 45‑year-old married woman living in Wellington. The parties are members of the New Zealand Vietnamese community. …
…
[3]Ms Nguyen says the defendants wrongly accused her of hiring hackers to deactivate Facebook pages and Facebook groups of members of the New Zealand Vietnamese community and other criminal misconduct such as embezzlement and fraud. The accusations, which included purported proof in the form of screenshots of conversations allegedly between Ms Nguyen and the hackers, were published as Facebook posts which were widely read and shared throughout the Vietnamese community. Ms Nguyen was not contacted by the defendants before any of these posts were published.
[4]The accusations are without foundation. There is expert evidence that the accusations are based on falsified digital documents. The defendants eventually accepted the documents were fabricated and have all published belated retractions.
[3]HC judgment, above n 1 (footnote omitted).
It is also relevant to note that, as the High Court explained, although the defendants in that Court were served with the claim, none took any steps to defend the proceedings. The matter accordingly proceeded by way of formal proof.
The applicant’s conduct in terms of the defamation is described by the Court of…

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 Fam v Nguyen

Details

AGLC: Fam v Nguyen [2025] NZSC 151
Case: [2025] NZSC 151
Decision Date: 7 November 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Julie Fam, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal which declined to grant her an extension of time to appeal the defamation judgment against her. The first respondent, Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha, was awarded $100,000 in damages in the High Court. The applicant had not defended the defamation claim and was found liable for defamatory statements made against the first respondent. The Court of Appeal declined to grant the applicant an extension of time to file her case on appeal. The legal issues in this case were whether the applicant's application for leave to appeal should be granted and whether the Court of Appeal was correct in declining to grant an extension of time. The Court held that the applicant's application for leave to appeal should be dismissed as the merits of the proposed appeal appeared hopeless and the application did not raise any question of general or public importance. The Court also held that the Court of Appeal was correct in declining to grant an extension of time as the delays altogether were relatively significant and the applicant had already received indulgences. The Court further held that the applicant's reasons for delay were unpersuasive and that the first respondent would be prejudiced by yet another delay to allow the applicant to appeal a judgment in a proceeding she did not defend. As a result, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed and the applicant was ordered to pay the first respondent costs of $2,500.

Orders