Legal Research
Cases
Karam v Parker

Karam v Parker

Case [2014] NZHC 737 9 April 2014

Defamation

Publisher Liability

Innocent Dissemination

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2010-404-003038 [2014] NZHC 737

BETWEEN JOSEPH FRANCIS KARAM Plaintiff

AND

KENT PARKER First Defendant

VICTOR PURKISS Second Defendant

Hearing: 14-18, 21 October 2013

Appearances:

M P Reed QC and P A McKnight for Plaintiff
First Defendant in Person
Second Defendant no appearance

Judgment:

9 April 2014

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 9 April 2014 at 4.30 pm
pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date...............................

KARAM v PARKER & OR [2014] NZHC 737 [9 April 2014]

Table of Contents

Para No.

Introduction  [1] Was Mr Parker the publisher of statements by third parties?  [7] Section 21 – the relevant principles  [9]
Was Mr Parker a publisher of statements by third parties on the
Facebook page?  [14]
Was Mr Parker the publisher of posts on Counterspin  [20] The meaning of statements – relevant principles  [24] The meaning of the words – relevant principles  [26]

The defence of honest opinion – relevant principles [30]

The Facebook page
FB 2, 3 and 4 – the “too prejudicial” thread [35]
FB 6A – “A misuse of Legal Aid?” [40] FB 9 and 10 – The “happily uninformed” [42] FB 11 – “why not petition for a third trial?” [46] FB 14 – “Relationships” [49] FB 15 – “Psychic” [51] FB 16 – “Men’s bladders” [53] FB 20 – “Missed????” [55] FB 21 – “Our prickly Joe” [57] FB 22 [59] FB 23 [61] FB 24 “Karam speaking engagement” [63] FB 25 and 26 [65] FB 27, 28 and 30 – “The Blind Tyranny of Belief” [69] FB 31 [74] FB 38 – “Book Canned” [76]

The Counterspin website
CS 4 and 6  [78]
CS 7  [81] CS 8 – “conflicting evidence”  [83] CS 9 – 11 – “how the not guilty verdict was obtained”  [85] CS 13 – “create a following using personal charisma and influence” [88] CS 14, 16 and 17 – “13 years’ promoting one point of view”               [91] CS 19 – “muddied waters”  [93] CS 20 – “Arthur Allan Thomas’s 30th”  [95] CS 21 – “Yahoo does it AGAIN”  [97] CS 25 and 26 – “Karam gets 50 per cent of income from case???”     [99] CS 36 – “muddied waters”  [102] CS 39 and 41 – “the Court of public opinion P5”  [104] CS 53 and 58 – “what is justice?”  [106] CS 60 and 61 – “Joe Karam wears his defamation suit”  [109] CS 65 and 66 – Posts following the “where’s Joe’s defamation
suit now?” article  [111] CS 67 – 70  [115] CS 71  [121] CS 72  [123] CS 75  [127]

CS 83 and 84 [129] CS 85 [132] CS 86 [134] CS 89 – 91 [136] CS 92 [141] CS 94 [144] CS 96 [146] CS 97 [148] CS 98 [151] CS 105 and 106 [153] CS 107 [157] CS 110 and 111 [161]
The other websites [166] Trade Me – “poof – another Bain…

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 Karam v Parker

Details

AGLC: Karam v Parker [2014] NZHC 737
Case: [2014] NZHC 737
Decision Date: 9 April 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joseph Karam has commenced proceedings against Kent Parker and Victor Purkiss seeking damages and an injunction in respect of numerous defamatory statements made about him on social media sites and blogs. Mr Parker was the administrator of the Facebook page “Justice for Robin Bain” and the creator of the Counterspin website. Mr Purkiss was a contributor to the Facebook page and Counterspin. Mr Karam claims that many of the statements defamed him by conveying, among other things, that he lacked integrity, was dishonest, was motivated to support David Bain by the prospect of financial gain and had defrauded the Legal Services Agency (LSA). The defendants pleaded the defences of honest opinion, qualified privilege, and truth. Mr Purkiss did not appear at the trial. Mr Parker abandoned the truth defence during the trial. The issues for determination were whether Mr Parker was the publisher of statements by third parties; whether the comments published by the defendants related to Mr Karam and had the defamatory meanings contended for; whether the defence of honest opinion was available in respect of any comments found to be defamatory; whether the defence of qualified privilege was available; and what were the appropriate damages and whether injunctive relief should be granted. The court found that Mr Parker was the publisher of posts made on the Facebook page and Counterspin. The court found that there were 50 defamatory statements for which there was no defence. The court found that the appropriate amount of compensatory damages was $525,000. Of this, $55,000 was to be split equally between the defendants and the balance was to be apportioned between them based on their conduct and the proportion of statements for which each was liable. The court found that Mr Parker’s conduct amounted to flagrant disregard of Mr Karam’s rights and awarded $10,000 in punitive damages. The court also made orders requiring the removal of defamatory material from the Facebook page and Counterspin site and prohibiting the defendants from publishing defamatory material about Mr Karam in any forum. The court also ordered indemnity costs against Mr Parker and Mr Purkiss.

Orders