Lowes v Mediaworks TV Limited

[2017] NZHC 1729

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WELLINGTON REGISTRY

CIV-2017-485-7 [2017] NZHC 1729

UNDER	section 18 of the Broadcasting Act 1989
IN THE MATTER	of an appeal from a decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (No 2016-072 dated 2 December 2016)
BETWEEN	ARCHIBALD NORMAN LOWES Appellant
AND	MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED Respondent

On the papers
Counsel:	A N Lowes in Person T E G Turton for Respondent
Judgment:	25 July 2017

JUDGMENT OF THOMAS J

[1]      By my decision dated 29 May 2017, I dismissed Mr Lowes’ appeal against a decision of the Broadcasting Standards Authority (BSA) regarding inaccuracies in a MediaWorks broadcast.1

[2]      In my conclusion, I made some observations as to what might be considered the utility of Mr Lowes’ identification of inaccuracies in the particular broadcast. Given those observations, I suggested MediaWorks might well consider costs should lie where they fall.

[3]      MediaWorks has now filed a memorandum in respect of costs.   Rather reluctantly, it accepts my suggestion, although it repeats its view that the appeal

1      Lowes v MediaWorks TV Limited [2017] NZHC 1130.

LOWES v MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED [2017] NZHC 1729 [25 July 2017]

should have been avoided given MediaWorks’ Standards Committee acknowledged

the inaccuracy in the broadcast in relation to Mr Lowes’ initial complaint on 26

August 2016.

[4]      MediaWorks also notes it has tried to limit Mr Lowes’ potential cost exposure throughout the proceeding and did not instruct counsel to appear on its behalf.   It does, however, seek as a disbursement the cost of in-house counsel’s travel from Auckland to Wellington and return. These costs total $606.79.

[5]      Mr Lowes has filed a memorandum in response, submitting MediaWorks should bear “a share of the costs” and repeating his criticism of the inaccuracies of the broadcast.  He also contends Mr Turton, in-house counsel at MediaWorks, went to MediaWorks’ Wellington office that day “to update their employees, so he was on company business that day”.

[6]     Costs are at the discretion of the Court.   I acknowledge MediaWorks’ reservations  as  to  the way in  which  Mr  Lowes  has  conducted himself  in  these proceedings but nevertheless consider the decision not to pursue costs is an appropriate one in the circumstances.  That is not to say this is the approach which will always be taken by the Court if inaccuracies are acknowledged and rectified at an early date.

[7]      I do, however, consider it appropriate to award MediaWorks the costs of its disbursements.  It was successful in the appeal and I accept it minimised its costs by using in-house counsel to appear.  It should not, however, be out of pocket and it is awarded the disbursements of $606.79.   They are reasonable and reasonably necessary for the proceedings.

[8]      I note the Court holds $1,115 by way of security for costs.  These funds are to be paid to the parties in accordance with this decision, with the result $606.79 is to be paid to MediaWorks and the balance refunded to Mr Lowes.

Thomas J