Lee v Lee - [2018] NZHC 3136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2015-404-001648

[2018] NZHC 3136

BETWEEN
HYUNG SOO LEE

Plaintiff

AND

YONGWOO LEE & ANOR

Defendant

Hearing: 09 July 2018 - 19 July 2019

Appearances:

T C Goatley & J Cole for Plaintiff J Strauss for Defendants

Judgment:

30 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF VAN BOHEMEN J

This judgment was delivered by me on 30 November 2018 at 4pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Bell Gully, Auckland Northern Legal, Albany
Counsel:
J Strauss, Auckland

LEE v LEE & ANOR [2018] NZHC 3136 [30 November 2018]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

[Para No.]

Introduction [1]

Matters not in dispute [7]

The article [10]

The plaintiff’s contentions [15]

The defendants’ contentions [17]

Relevant factual background  [19]
Formation of Foundation Committee and identification of Community Centre building     22
Efforts to cover funding shortfall  26
The 27 March 2013 agreement  30
Commitment to further fundraising efforts  31
Discussions regarding Cultural Centre governance and candidates’ deposits      34
Deteriorating relationships and ensuing fallout  39
Legal proceedings  48
Department of Internal Affairs warning notice  53

Was Mr Henry Lee defamed in the Seed of Dispute article? [57]

Were the admitted meanings true? [66]

Are the admitted imputations true or the logical inference to be drawn, on the balance of probabilities, from the established facts?  [73]
Connotations of “yi-myin-gye-yak”  76
Were the imputations true or not materially different from the truth?  84
Mr Henry Lee and the other parties to the 27 March 2013 agreement planned to hide the agreement from the public  85
Mr Henry Lee a party to a plan to engage in deception  102
Mr Henry Lee had not acted openly, honestly or honourably  105
The existence of the 27 March 2013 agreement and by implication the behaviour of Mr Henry Lee as a party to it were “shocking”  106
In trying to “privatise the Centre”, Mr Henry Lee and Mr Hong were attempting to usurp the authority of the Korean Society and take personal control of the
Cultural Centre  107
Mr Henry Lee, together with Mr Hong, sought to control the BOD so as to avoid paying money they owed to Mr Kim  111
Mr Henry Lee got involved in a “muddy fight” over the validity of the dismissal of the BOD to try to avoid paying money he owned to Mr Kim  114
The reason why Mr Henry Lee hid the 27 March 2013 agreement was to avoid having to pay any money  118
When entering into the 27 March agreement to share the burden of the funding, Mr Henry Lee had no intention of actually paying any money  120

If Mr Henry Lee had to pay any money, then his plan to avoid paying money would have gone wrong 125
Mr Henry Lee was pursuing his own personal ambitions rather than the interests of the Korean community 128
Mr Henry Lee was portraying his actions as if…

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 Lee v Lee

Details

AGLC: Lee v Lee [2018] NZHC 3136
Case: [2018] NZHC 3136
Decision Date: 30 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Hyung Soo Lee (Henry Lee) brought a defamation proceeding against Yong Woo Lee (Steve Lee) and the New Zealand Sunday Times Ltd (Sunday Times) for an article written by Steve Lee and published by the Sunday Times on 13 March 2015. The article concerned the purchase by the Korean Society of Auckland Inc (Korean Society) of a building to be known as the Korean Cultural Community Centre (Cultural Centre) and Henry Lee’s involvement in the fundraising arrangements for that purchase and in associated developments within the Korean Society. The article was entitled “Seed of Dispute, Behind Contract of Sung Hyuk Kim, Young Pyo Hong and Hyung Soo Lee”. Henry Lee pleaded that the article had 15 specific defamatory meanings, which were admitted by the defendants. The defendants contended that the article was an editorial or opinion piece, that it was not defamatory and that all of the admitted meanings were either true or were honest opinion based on inferences available from the language of the article taken as a whole and drawing on facts stated in the article or generally known at the time of publication. In the alternative, the defendants submitted that the article and the meanings to be taken from it were covered by the defence of public interest communication. The court held that seven of the admitted meanings were defamatory and found that the defendants had not established that they were true or not materially different from the truth. The court also held that the defendants had not established that the publication of the article was responsible. The court found that Steve Lee and the Sunday Times defamed Henry Lee in the Seed of Dispute article. The court awarded Henry Lee compensatory damages of $150,000 jointly and severally against Steve Lee and the Sunday Times. Henry Lee was also entitled to costs on a 2B basis with reasonable disbursements to be fixed by the Registrar.

Orders