Kong v NZND Media Limited

[2013] NZHC 2116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-5745 [2013] NZHC 2116

UNDER

the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

HONG SHENG KONG

Plaintiff

AND

NZND MEDIA LIMITED

First Defendant

AND

RONG JING DENG

Second Defendant

Hearing:

20 August 2013

Appearances:

S H N Chan for Plaintiff

No appearance for the Defendants

Judgment:

20 August 2013

JUDGMENT OF PETERS J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Peters on 20 August 2013 at 2 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date: ...................................

Solicitors:             McVeagh Fleming, Auckland

KONG v NZND MEDIA LIMITED [2013] NZHC 2116 [20 August 2013]

[1] The Plaintiff commenced these proceedings in September 2012. The Defendants have been served but have not taken any step in the proceedings. Accordingly the Plaintiff has made an application for formal proof.

[2] The application for formal proof was called before me today.  The Plaintiff’s case is that an article published by the Defendants in a Chinese newspaper contained statements that defamed him.

[3] The Plaintiff swore an affidavit on 17 April 2013 and annexed marked “A” what he swore was an English translation of the article. Yesterday I advised counsel for the Plaintiff that evidence would be required from a suitably qualified expert that the said English translation was accurate.

[4]   When   the   matter   was   called   today,   counsel   for   the   Plaintiff   called Ms Marlene Lu to give evidence. Ms Lu’s evidence was to the effect that she had prepared the translation to which I have referred and that it was accurate. I accept Ms Lu’s evidence that she is a qualified translator although counsel for the Plaintiff should note that on future occasions an affidavit listing the proposed expert’s qualifications should be filed.

[5]  In [8] of his statement of claim the Plaintiff alleges that the article defames him in three particular respects. In so far as concerns the alleged defamatory statement in [8](a) of the statement of claim I am satisfied that the New Zealand articles to which the Plaintiff refers did state that the Plaintiff had misdiagnosed a melanoma lesion as a diabetic lesion and there is no dispute that misdiagnosis occurred.

[6] I accept, however, that the statements referred to in [8](b) and (c) of the statement of claim were published and were defamatory of the Plaintiff. I find those two allegations proved and make a declaration pursuant to s 24(1) Defamation Act 1992 that the Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff in defamation in those two respects.

[7] Pursuant to s 24(2) Defamation Act 1992 I make an order that the Plaintiff be awarded solicitor and client costs against the Defendants, together with disbursements, with both costs and disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

..................................................................

M Peters J