Grishin v Bowie - [2021] NZHC 1204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TE WHANGANUI-A-TARA ROHE

CIV-2020-485-000757

[2021] NZHC 1204

BETWEEN
SERGEY GRISHIN

Applicant

AND

JOHN BOWIE

Proposed Defendant/Respondent

Hearing: 11 May 2021

Appearances:

W Akel and J W S Baigent for Applicant

J Bowie -Proposed Defendant/Respondent – In Person

Judgment:

27 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 May 2021 at 3 p.m. pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

Introduction

[1] On 18 December 2020, the applicant, Sergey Grishin, filed in this Court an interlocutory application for pre-commencement discovery against John Bowie, the proposed defendant and respondent.

[2] On 18 February 2021 the respondent filed by way of email a letter providing his response to this application which essentially was a formal opposition.

GRISHIN v BOWIE [2021] NZHC 1204 [27 May 2021]

[3] The applicant has provided a draft statement of claim and annexures with respect to his intended claim against the respondent.

[4] Essentially, the applicant contends the respondent has published 10 articles about and concerning the applicant which he says are seriously defamatory. The sting in these articles is said to be that the applicant is an evil Russian Oligarch, akin to the criminal mobster portrayed in the “Scarface” movie.

[5] In his pre-commencement discovery application, the applicant, amongst other things, generally seeks disclosure of the identity of all those who he says participated in or authorised the articles and related documents the subject of the defamation claim, to determine who could be possible defendants in this proceeding. The documents sought are said to be relevant to these issues, and the applicant maintains they are specifically defined and are proportionate to the remedies he seeks.

Pre-commencement discovery application

[6] The present application specifically seeks orders from this Court under paragraph 1:

(a)That within 20 working days, or such other period as the Court directs, the proposed defendant [Mr Bowie] will serve on the applicant an affidavit stating –

(i)Whether the documents identified in Schedule A (Documents) are or have been in the proposed defendant’s control; and

(ii)If they have been but are no longer in the proposed defendant’s control, the best knowledge and belief as to when the Documents ceased to be in the proposed defendant’s control and who now has control of them.

(b)Requiring that the proposed defendant make the Documents available for inspection within a further 10 working days or such other period as the Court directs.

(c)For costs.

[7] The Documents in question here are outlined at Appendix “A” of this judgment. The background to and the specific grounds for the orders sought set out in the applicant’s application are described as:

(a)The respondent resides in Wellington and is the publisher and an editor of the law news website, LawFuel, published on the website
around 20 April 2020 onwards the respondent published on the LawFuel website seven articles concerning or referring to the applicant, that the applicant…

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 Grishin v Bowie

Details

AGLC: Grishin v Bowie [2021] NZHC 1204
Case: [2021] NZHC 1204
Decision Date: 27 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Grishin v Bowie involved an interlocutory application for pre-commencement discovery filed by Sergey Grishin against John Bowie. Grishin sought to obtain certain documents from Bowie, the publisher and editor of the LawFuel website, in order to properly formulate his defamation claim against Bowie and other parties involved in the publication of allegedly defamatory articles about him. The court had to decide whether to grant the pre-commencement discovery orders sought by Grishin under rule 8.20 of the High Court Rules.

The key legal issues were whether Grishin had an adequate basis for his claim, whether it was impossible or impracticable for him to formulate his claim without the documents, and whether there were grounds to believe the documents were in Bowie's possession. The court found that Grishin had shown there was a reasonable basis for his defamation claim, that it would be impracticable for him to properly formulate his claim without the documents, and that there were grounds to believe the documents were in Bowie's possession. The court also rejected Bowie's arguments that the application was pointless, a fishing expedition, or that confidentiality provisions applied.

The court concluded that the interests of justice favoured granting the pre-commencement discovery orders. The orders would allow Grishin to properly identify all parties involved in the publication of the articles and ensure a fair and efficient resolution of his proposed defamation proceedings. The court made orders requiring Bowie to provide the requested documents by certain dates and awarded Grishin costs.

In summary, the court granted Grishin's application for pre-commencement discovery, finding that the jurisdictional requirements under rule 8.20 were met and that the orders were necessary to ensure justice for the parties. The discovery was seen as likely to lead to a less costly and more efficient resolution of Grishin's defamation claim.

Orders