IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2018-404-539

[2019] NZHC 3356

BETWEEN
STEVEN LEONARD JOYCE

Plaintiff

AND

MATTHEW OWEN HOOTON

First defendant (discontinued)

FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS (2012) LIMITED

Second defendant

TODD ALLEN SCOTT

Third defendant

Hearing: 9 and 10 December 2019 (half-days each)

Appearances:

Z G Kennedy and H M Jaques for the plaintiff PWG Ahern for the second and third defendants

Judgment:

17 December 2019

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

The judgment was delivered by me on 17 December 2019 at 3.00pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

……………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
Zane Kennedy Barrister, Auckland MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland Morrison Kent, Auckland

JOYCE v HOOTON [2019] NZHC 3356 [17 DECEMBER 2019]

[1] The plaintiff (“Mr Joyce”) seeks declaratory and indemnity costs relief under s 24 of the Defamation Act 1992 (the “Act”) against the second defendant (“Fourth Estate”), which publishes The National Business Review (“NBR”) in print and website formats. Relief pleaded for my recommendation of a s 26 correction was not pursued.

[2] Mr Joyce alleges two specific passages in a NBR article titled “Joyce sacking first test of Bridges’ leadership” (and, in its print format, subtitled “National MPs have finally been allowed to express what they really think of the party’s unelected strategist”), published on 2 March 2018, are defamatory of him. The particular passages are emphasised below:

Using Ms Adams as a proxy, he tried and failed to introduce the so-called copper tax to subsidise his friends at Chorus.

…

It will be a terrible shame if [Mr Bridges] lacks the mettle that Mr Key showed in so brutally despatching Dr Brash and instead bows to blackmail by Mr Joyce.

The full text of the article – appearing under the first defendant’s (“Mr Hooton”) byline, in his regular column titled “Weekly Hits” – is set out at the Schedule to this judgment.

[3] Mr Joyce seeks the same relief against the third defendant (“Mr Scott”) – Fourth Estate’s sole director and shareholder, who refers to himself as NBR’s “publisher” – in relation to three tweets alleged to ‘republish’ the article.

Background

[4] Mr Joyce formerly was a Member of Parliament (“MP”), holding office from November 2008 until retiring on 27 March 2018 (after giving notice on 6 March 2018). Previously, he held a number of positions in the National Party’s administration, including as its inaugural general manager from 2003 to 2005, and its campaign director for each the 2005 and 2008 general elections.

[5] As MP, Mr Joyce also held a number of ministerial portfolios from time to time. These included as Minister for Communications and Information Technology, to

which portfolio his fellow MP, Amy Adams, succeeded in 2011. While MP, Mr Joyce also chaired the party’s campaigns for the 2011, 2014 and 2017 general elections.

[6] In the last election, no single party obtained a majority of seats in the House of Representatives. National Party MPs were unsuccessful in negotiations to form…

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 Joyce v Hooton

Details

AGLC: Joyce v Hooton [2019] NZHC 3356
Case: [2019] NZHC 3356
Decision Date: 17 December 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Joyce v Hooton, the plaintiff, Mr Joyce, sought relief under the Defamation Act 1992 against Fourth Estate Holdings (2012) Limited and Todd Allen Scott for defamatory statements made in a National Business Review (NBR) article and subsequent tweets. The article, written by Matthew Hooton, contained two passages that Mr Joyce argued were defamatory. The first defendant, Mr Hooton, was later settled out of the case. The court was required to determine whether the passages in the article and the tweets were defamatory, and if so, whether they were true or materially different from the truth.

The court found that the passages in the article were defamatory, imputing that Mr Joyce was prepared to engage in unethical and improper conduct in pursuit of his political objectives. The court also found that Mr Scott's tweets were defamatory, as they endorsed the truth of the article's defamatory imputations. The court held that the defamatory meanings were not true, and therefore the passages and tweets were defamatory.

The court granted Mr Joyce's claim for declaratory relief and awarded him solicitor and client costs against Fourth Estate and Mr Scott. The court also denied Mr Joyce's application to further amend his claim, finding that the proposed amendments would have prejudiced the defendants and caused significant delay.

Orders