Fam v Nguyen - [2025] NZCA 352

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA628/2024
[2025] NZCA 352

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

Court:	Courtney and Palmer JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person F E Geiringer and S J Price for First Respondent No appearance for Second, Third and Fourth Respondents
Judgment: (On the papers)	23 July 2025 at 3 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

The application for an extension of time is declined.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Palmer J)

What happened?

On 4 May 2022, Ms Julie Fam republished a social media post accusing Ms Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha (known as Ha Nguyen) of being responsible for cyberattacks against Facebook pages and groups belonging to New Zealand’s Vietnamese Community in 2021 and 2022. She also accused Ms Nguyen of flirting with a teenage hacker, questioning whether it was appropriate for her to be teaching children. The accusations were based on falsified documents which Ms Fam and others eventually accepted were fabricated.
Ms Nguyen sued Ms Fam and other defendants in defamation. No steps were taken in defence. The matter proceeded in the High Court by way of formal proof. On 23 August 2024, the High Court held the repost was defamatory and awarded damages of $100,000 against Ms Fam.[1] Ms Fam has not sought to have the judgment set aside under r 15.10 of the High Court Rules 2016.
[1]Nguyen v Dinh [2024] NZHC 2358 at [57], [77] and [177].
On 23 September 2024, Ms Fam filed a notice of appeal on the basis that the High Court failed to give sufficient weight to her retraction, the damages were excessive, and the decision had a devastating effect on her household and her mental health and wellbeing.
On 27 November 2024, a Deputy Registrar informed Ms Fam that she had until 23 December 2024 to file the case on appeal, otherwise her appeal would be automatically deemed abandoned under r 43(1) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005. On 23 December 2024, Ms Fam sought an extension of time, saying she needed to have documents affirmed by a solicitor and she aimed to have the task completed the next day. A Deputy Registrar granted an extension of time until 22 January 2025. Ms Fam did not make further contact with the Registry or the respondents by that date. Nor did she file the case on appeal or apply for allocation of a hearing date. The appeal was deemed abandoned on 23 January 2025 and a notice of result issued.
On 3 February 2025, Ms Fam applied for an extension of time under r 43(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules.

Submissions

Ms Fam submits the High Court decision exacerbated her mental and physical health issues, forcing her to resign from her job and temporarily relocate to Vietnam for intensive treatment. This…

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] NZCA 352
Case: [2025] NZCA 352
Decision Date: 23 July 2025 at 3 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Julie Fam has applied for an extension of time to appeal a High Court judgment against her in defamation proceedings brought by Nguyen Thi Thanh Ha. The High Court found that Fam had republished defamatory statements on social media about Nguyen, and awarded Nguyen $100,000 in damages. Fam filed a notice of appeal but did not take any steps to file the case on appeal within the time allowed. The Court of Appeal granted Fam an extension of time to file the case on appeal, but she did not meet the new deadline. Fam now seeks a further extension of time to file the appeal, arguing that the High Court decision has negatively impacted her health and wellbeing.

The key issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant Fam an extension of time to appeal the High Court judgment, despite her failure to meet previous deadlines. The Court considered the delays in filing the appeal, the merits of Fam's proposed appeal, and the interests of justice. The Court found that Fam had already received significant indulgences from the Court, yet still failed to meet the deadlines. The merits of Fam's proposed appeal appeared hopeless, as she did not contest the essential aspects of the High Court decision. The existence of another appeal proceeding was not relevant to whether to grant an extension of time in this case.

In these circumstances, the Court of Appeal found that it was not in the interests of justice to grant Fam a further extension of time to file the appeal. The application for an extension of time was declined.

Orders