(a)the statements made in the Briefing Paper are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded; and
(b)the Oral Statements are capable of bearing the pleaded meaning that the appellant was overly emotional.

BThe Judge’s finding that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1688 precludes the pleading that the Minister’s statements in the House were a republication is upheld.

C The strikeout of the cause of action for negligent misstatement is upheld.

DParagraph [48] of the amended statement of claim is reinstated by consent.
EThe cross appeal is dismissed.
FNo order as to costs.

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Ellen France J)

Table of Contents

Page No.

Introduction  [1]
Factual background  [5]
The judgment in the High Court  [11]
Were the statements capable of defamatory meaning?  [15]
The relevant pleadings  [15]
         The applicable principles  [17]
         This case  [20]
         “The plaintiff was incompetent”  [23]
         “The plaintiff was irresponsible”  [30]
         “The plaintiff was overly emotional”  [33]

“The plaintiff was not fit to be employed by a Government department, Ministry or agency as a professional communications consultant” [35]

Were the Oral Statements capable of defamatory meaning?  [39]
The impact of Article 9  [40]
The scope of proceedings in the House  [66]
The pleadings issues  [78]
One or two causes of action?  [79]
The requirement to plead actual words  [85]
Negligence[91]
Disposition[102]
Costs[106]

Introduction

Erin Leigh says that various statements (written and oral) made about her by the Ministry for the Environment (the Ministry) and by Lindsay Gow, the then Deputy Secretary of the Ministry, were defamatory. The statements were made in the context of providing material for the Minister for the Environment in order to answer Parliamentary Questions. Ms Leigh brought proceedings against the respondents seeking damages for defamation and negligence in relation to the statements. The respondents succeeded in the High Court in striking out some aspects of Ms Leigh’s amended claim.[1] Ms Leigh appeals and the respondents cross-appeal.
[1] Leigh v The Attorney-General HC Wellington CIV-2008-485-2315, 14 July 2009.
The appeal raises the following primary issues:
(a)Were the statements capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded?
(b)Can Ms Leigh claim for damage to her reputation resulting from what the Minister said about her in Parliament and subsequent media reporting of what the Minister said?
(c)Are the statements made by the Ministry and Mr Gow covered by absolute privilege?
(d)Did the Ministry owe a duty of care to Ms…

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 Leigh v Attorney-General

Details

AGLC: Leigh v Attorney-General [2010] NZCA 624
Case: [2010] NZCA 624
Decision Date: 17 December 2010

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Court of Appeal of New Zealand, Erin Leigh, the appellant, filed an appeal against the Attorney-General in respect of the Ministry of Environment and Lindsay Gow, the second respondent, seeking damages for defamation and negligence in relation to statements made about her. The respondents succeeded in the High Court in striking out some aspects of Ms Leigh's amended claim. The appeal raises the following primary issues: (a) Were the statements capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded? (b) Can Ms Leigh claim for damage to her reputation resulting from what the Minister said about her in Parliament and subsequent media reporting of what the Minister said? (c) Are the statements made by the Ministry and Mr Gow covered by absolute privilege? (d) Did the Ministry owe a duty of care to Ms Leigh in preparing the statements? The appeal is allowed, to the extent that: (a) the statements made in the Briefing Paper are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings pleaded; and (b) the Oral Statements are capable of bearing the pleaded meaning that the appellant was overly emotional. The Judge's finding that Article 9 of the Bill of Rights Act 1688 precludes the pleading that the Minister's statements in the House were a republication is upheld as is the strikeout of the cause of action for negligent misstatement. The parties agree that it was a mistake to strike out [48] of the amended statement of claim. That paragraph is reinstated. The cross appeal is dismissed. Costs should lie where they fall.

Orders