Legal Research
Cases
Leishman v Levie

Leishman v Levie

Case [2018] NZHC 2122 17 August 2018

Admissibility of Evidence

Relief

Defamation Law

Civil Litigation & Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2016-404-001875

[2018] NZHC 2122

BETWEEN
CRAIG LEISHMAN

Plaintiff

AND

ROGER HENRY LEVIE

First Defendant

AND

HOME OWNERS AND BUYERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 14 August 2018

Appearances:

J B Orpin-Dowell for the Plaintiff

J V Ormsby/N G Lawrence for the Defendants

Judgment:

17 August 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE P J ANDREW

This judgment was delivered by me on
17.08.18 at 3:30pm, pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Grove Darlow & Partners, Auckland Stout Street Chambers, Auckland Wynn Williams, Auckland

C LEISHMAN v R H LEVIE and HOME OWNERS AND BUYERS ASSOCIATION OF NEW ZEALAND INCORPORATED [2018] NZHC 2122 [17 August 2018]

Introduction

[1] This is a claim by the plaintiff, Mr Leishman, for defamation and breach of contract again the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand Inc (HOBANZ) and Mr Roger Levie, HOBANZ’s chief executive.

[2] Mr Leishman is the principal shareholder and managing director of Boutique Body Corporates Ltd (BBCL). He and BBCL provide secretarial, advisory, administrative, and management services to bodies corporate. The services include those relating to resolving building defect issues. HOBANZ provides similar services.

[3] BBCL acts as a body corporate secretary for the Bella Vista Apartments, a unit title complex at Te Atatu. The Bella Vista apartments had building defect issues.

[4] The defamation claim relates to an email the defendants sent to three of the owners of the Bella Vista apartments on 22 August 2014.

[5] The claim for breach of contract has its genesis in 2008, when HOBANZ and its then president, Mr Gray, published a defamatory statement sent to the Minister for Building and Construction, about the plaintiff. Proceedings brought by Mr Leishman in relation to the 2008 defamation were settled. The plaintiff says that the publication of the 22 August 2014 email was a breach of the deed of settlement. He also says that the 2008 defamatory statements are similar to those now at issue in these proceedings and that there is a pattern of the defendants defaming him.

[6] Mr Leishman seeks orders pursuant to r 8.38 of the High Court Rules that the defendants answer interrogatories. Mr Leishman says the answers to those interrogatories will be relevant to establishing at trial the history of the relationship between the defendants and Mr Leishman and BBCL, and that the defendants have made statements (similar to those they made about Mr Leishman in 2008 and in the 2014 email) on other occasions to the bodies corporate listed in table 1, schedule 1 to the application.

[7] The defendants object to the interrogatories on the grounds that the questions are irrelevant, oppressive, raise confidentiality issues and are an attempt to illicit evidence that the defendants may call at trial.

Relevant legal principles

[8] The general principles governing interrogatories was set out by Associate Judge Bell in the earlier judgment of Leishman…

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 Leishman v Levie

Details

AGLC: Leishman v Levie [2018] NZHC 2122
Case: [2018] NZHC 2122
Decision Date: 17 August 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Leishman v Levie revolves around a defamation and breach of contract claim brought by Craig Leishman against Roger Henry Levie and the Home Owners and Buyers Association of New Zealand Incorporated (HOBANZ). Leishman, who is the principal shareholder and managing director of Boutique Body Corporates Ltd (BBCL), provides services to body corporates, including those dealing with building defects. The defendants, HOBANZ and its chief executive, Levie, also offer similar services. The defamation claim pertains to an email sent by the defendants to some Bella Vista Apartments owners, while the breach of contract claim stems from a prior defamatory statement published by HOBANZ in 2008, which was settled. Leishman now argues that the 2014 email was a breach of the settlement deed.

The court considered the legal principles governing interrogatories, including the objectives of obtaining admissions, further particulars, and accounts. The plaintiff argued that the interrogatories sought would establish or form a step in proving that the defendants had made similar defamatory statements on other occasions, which could indicate ill will and the unavailability of certain defences. The defendants objected on grounds of irrelevance, fishing for evidence, confidentiality, and oppression. The court found that the interrogatories were relevant to the issues of ill will and the relief sought by the plaintiff. It also rejected the fishing objection, stating that there was sufficient evidential basis for the interrogatories.

The court granted the plaintiff's amended application for interrogatories, ordering the defendants to answer specific questions and verify their answers by affidavit. The close of pleadings date was extended to accommodate the new information. The plaintiff was entitled to costs on a 2B basis, subject to a potential 50 percent reduction if the parties could not agree on the amount.

Orders