Hicks v The the Queen

[2022] NZHC 1308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-000309

[2021] NZHC 1308

BETWEEN

BRYAN DOUGLAS STAPLES

First Plaintiff

AND

CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED

Second Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD LOGAN FREEMAN

First Defendant

AND

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED

Second Defendant

AND

KATE MCCALLUM

Third Defendant

AND

TRISTRAM CLAYTON

Fourth Defendant

Hearing:

23 March 2021

Appearances:

P A Morten for Plaintiffs

No appearance for Defendants

Judgment:

4 June 2021

Reissued:

14 November 2022

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

This judgment was issued by me on 4 June 2021 at 12.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

STAPLES v CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED [2021] NZHC 1308 [4 June 2021]

Overview  [1]

Background  [6]

The posts  [16]

Issues for determination  [24]

Evidence on behalf of Mr Staples  [28]

Were defamatory statements made about Mr Staples?  [34]

The Facebook posts  [40]

The District Court documents  [42]

Did Mr Freeman publish the statements?  [54]

The Facebook posts  [55]

The District Court documents  [56]

Defences

Absolute privilege  [57]

Remedies  [60]

Declaration  [61]

Damages  [62]

The gravity of the defamation  [67]

The extent of the publication  [70]

The harm suffered by Mr Staples  [79]

Aggravated damages  [89]

Overall assessment  [92]

Punitive damages  [98]

Interest  [101]

Costs  [110]

Result  [111]

Overview

[1]    Mr Bryan Staples, the first plaintiff in the proceedings, and his company Claims Resolution Services Ltd (CRS), the second plaintiff, provide assistance to homeowners with unresolved Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurance claims for damage caused by the Canterbury earthquake sequence. These proceedings involve a claim that the defendants defamed Mr Staples and CRS when they made allegations of fraudulent and illegitimate practices by Mr Staples and CRS.

[2]    The second defendant is Mediaworks TV Ltd (Mediaworks). The third is Kate McCallum, a television producer. The fourth defendant is Tristram Clayton, a journalist. Both the third and fourth defendants were employed by Mediaworks at all relevant times. For convenience all three are referred to as Mediaworks.

[3]    This application concerns only the first defendant, Mr Richard Logan Freeman (Mr Freeman). Mr Freeman has failed to file a statement of defence to the claims made against him, so this claim proceeded by way of formal proof.

[4]    The Court’s role is to establish whether Mr Staples has established the elements of his claim and, if he has, to consider the issue of remedies. The standard to which I am required to be satisfied on the plaintiff’s evidence “is much the same as it would be if the proceeding had gone to trial”.1 The applicable standard of proof is therefore the balance of probabilities. In this formal proof setting I am not required to consider hypothetical affirmative defences.2

[5]    If I am persuaded the elements of the claim are proven Mr Freeman will be liable for defamation. I would then assess Mr Staples’ claims for:

(a)general damages (including aggravated damages);

(b)punitive damages;

(c)interest; and

1      Ferreira v Stockinger [2015] NZHC 2916 at [35].

2      Booth v Poplar…