Joyce v Hooton - [2019] NZHC 2761

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2018-404-539

[2019] NZHC 2761

BETWEEN
STEVEN LEONARD JOYCE

Plaintiff

AND

MATTHEW OWEN HOOTON

First defendant (discontinued)

FOURTH ESTATE HOLDINGS (2012) LIMITED

Second defendant

TODD ALLEN SCOTT

Third defendant

Date of hearing: 21 October 2019

Appearances:

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

Judgment:

29 October 2019

JUDGMENT OF JAGOSE J

The judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2019 at 3.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

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

Solicitors/Counsel:
MinterEllisonRuddWatts, Auckland Morrison Kent, Auckland

JOYCE v HOOTON [2019] NZHC 2761 [29 October 2019]

[1] In this proceeding, Mr Joyce seeks redress (in terms of ss 24 and 26 of the Defamation Act 1992) for his alleged defamation in the National Business Review, published by the second defendant (for convenience “NBR”) and its publisher, the third defendant (Mr Scott). The claim is set down for a four-day hearing commencing 9 December 2019 (although the NBR’s recent abandonment of aspects of its defence, including any requirement for subpoenas, means a materially shorter trial is likely).

[2] While denying the two passages impugned by Mr Joyce are defamatory, the NBR says they also are true, or the publication taken as a whole is true.1 (In this judgment I refer to the NBR’s defence based on the publication taken as a whole as its ‘extended defence’.) If correct in either respect, NBR’s defence would succeed. The NBR additionally pleads the ‘public interest’ defence.2 In support of its extended defence, the NBR points to seven other passages in the publication, which it says also are true.

[3]On the present (amended) application, Mr Joyce seeks I:

(a)determine as preliminary separate questions the natural and ordinary meanings of each the passages impugned by Mr Joyce, and the other passages relied on by the NBR; and

(b)if determining the meanings of each respectively is different, strike out the NBR’s extended defence; or

(c)determine the natural and ordinary meanings the passages relied on by the NBR are capable of bearing, to strike out its extended defence, if those meanings are different from those I previously found the passages impugned by Mr Joyce were reasonably capable of bearing.3

1 Defamation Act 1992, s 8.
2 Durie v Gardiner [2018] NZCA 278, [2018] 3 NZLR 131.
3 Minute dated 21 August 2018 at [9].

Approach

[4] Despite the baseline expectation at least each cause of action will be determined at a single trial,4 I may order separate and prior decision of any particular question.5 The threshold for such is high, requiring “good, preponderant reasons”;6 judicial warnings against light resort to separate decisions are legion.7

[5] On the other hand, because “defamatory meaning is to be determined exclusively by an examination of the words themselves”,8 English texts (commenting on their new Defamation Act 2013’s abolishment of the presumption in favour of trial by…

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 2761
Case: [2019] NZHC 2761
Decision Date: 29 October 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Joyce v Hooton, the plaintiff, Steven Leonard Joyce, sought redress for alleged defamation published in the National Business Review (NBR). The defendants were the NBR, its publisher, and another individual. Joyce sought a separate and prior determination of the meanings of certain passages in the publication, arguing that if those meanings differed from the passages he complained of, the NBR’s extended defence should be struck out. The defendants opposed the application, asserting their defences were reasonably arguable and should be determined at trial.

The court considered whether the application met the high threshold for a separate and prior decision, requiring good, preponderant reasons. The court noted that while determining defamatory meaning as a preliminary issue could offer benefits, such as an early ruling that might influence the defendants' decision to make an offer of amends, it could also lead to evidential overlap with the subsequent trial. The court concluded that the application did not meet the threshold for a separate decision due to the lateness of the application, the need for further steps, and the proximity of the trial.

The court also dismissed Joyce’s application to strike out the NBR’s extended defence, as it was contingent on the separate decision application being granted in his favour. The court found that the NBR’s defences were reasonably arguable and should be determined at trial. In its preliminary view, the court indicated that the NBR, as the successful party, was entitled to costs, reserving the final determination of costs for later consideration if the parties could not agree.

In summary, the court dismissed Joyce’s applications for separate decision and strike out, and noted that the defendants’ defences should be determined at the trial scheduled for December 2019.

Orders