Malik v Syed

[2025] NZCA 417

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

 
CA493/2023
 [2025] NZCA 417

BETWEEN	AMIR FAZAL MALIK First Appellant
AND	TRINITY JOAN WILSON Second Appellant
AND	ZAINULABIDIN SYED Respondent

Hearing:	26 June 2025 (further submissions received 9 July 2025)
Court:	French P, Lang and Downs JJ
Counsel:	Appellants in person A Ho for Respondent
Judgment:	20 August 2025 at 3.45 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is dismissed and the damages award made in the High Court is confirmed.

BThe appellants must pay the respondent one set of costs, for which they are jointly and severally liable, calculated as a standard appeal on a band A basis, together with usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by French P)

Introduction

1. Mr Malik and Ms Wilson appeal a High Court decision awarding general and aggravated damages against them in a defamation proceeding brought by the respondent.[1]

   [1]Syed v Malik [2023] NZHC 1676 [judgment under appeal].

2. The appeal is limited to quantum, this Court having declined to allow Mr Malik and Ms Wilson an extension of time to appeal an earlier liability judgment.[2]

   [2]Malik v Syed [2024] NZCA 49 [extension of time judgment] at [13]. See also Syed v Malik [2018] NZHC 2278 [liability judgment].

3. Ms Wilson filed written submissions for the appeal in her own right.  She later advised the Court that she would not be appearing at the hearing but authorised Mr Malik to represent her interests in his oral presentation.

Background

1. Mr Malik and the respondent Mr Syed were business associates.  There was a serious falling out.  Between 21 October 2016 and 28 December 2017, Mr Malik and Ms Wilson, his wife, were found to have published 20 defamatory statements about Mr Syed.[3]  The majority of the publications were in the form of emails to a group of recipients.  Some were also published on social media, and specifically Facebook.  There were also several YouTube videos.

   [3]Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [11]; and liability judgment, above n 2, at [45].

2. As summarised in the High Court decision under appeal, the defamatory imputations contained in the posts, videos and emails included claims that Mr Syed:[4]

   [4]Judgment under appeal, above n 1, at [13].

   (a)had misused funds provided for the construction of a mosque;

   (b)was guilty of fraud, perjury, forging documents and signatures, money-laundering, trespass and tax evasion;

   (c)funded and supported terrorist organisations;

   (d)is a criminal who would end up in prison;

   (e)was born out of wedlock;

   (f)keeps two wives in Australia against the law;

   (g)is outwardly Muslim but secretly unsympathetic to Muslims and actively sought to undermine their community;

   (h)has made tens of millions of dollars through a combination of various forms of dishonesty or illegal activity; and

   (i)uses fear, intimidation and threats of harm to ensure victims of his unlawful activities remain silent.

3. In 2018, Mr Syed issued defamation proceedings against Mr Malik and Ms Wilson seeking damages for alleged losses of over $10 million said to have…