Manaia Media Limited v Cato - [2025] NZCA 233

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA172/2023
[2025] NZCA 233

BETWEEN	MANAIA MEDIA LIMITED First Appellant ROWAN DIXON Second Appellant JANE THOMPSON Third Appellant
AND	KRISTIN PIA CATO Respondent

Hearing:	8 May 2024 (further information received 17 May 2024)
Court:	Mallon, Cooke and Collins JJ
Counsel:	W Akel and F A King for Appellants R D Butler and E D Nilsson for Respondent
Judgment:	12 June 2025 at 11 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe appeal is allowed. An order for a retrial is made.
BThe respondent must pay the appellants costs for a standard appeal on a band A basis together with usual disbursements. We certify for second counsel.
C Costs in the High Court are set aside.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Mallon J)

Table of contents

Introduction [1]

Background [6]

The tour and the complaints [6]

NZ Horse & Pony’s earlier articles [19]

Verification steps prior to publishing Article [28]

The Article [36]

Subsequent amendments [45]

ESNZ and other media reports [48]

Public interest defence [51]

Durie v Gardiner [51]

Evidence rulings [55]

Procedure [66]

Trial Judge’s decision on public interest defence [71]

Public interest [74]

Responsible communication [90]

Meaning [116]

Unfair prejudice arising from Mr Ralston’s evidence? [117]

Unfair prejudice from Mr Collins’ evidence? [127]

Direction to ignore irrelevant evidence [131]

Reference to Court of Appeal’s decision [139]

Other matters [160]

Summary [162]

Damages [163]

General and aggravated damages [163]

Punitive damages [172]

Result [178]

Introduction

This appeal raises issues about the application of the public interest defence in defamation proceedings tried by a jury. It also raises issues concerning evidence admissibility rulings, judicial directions on meaning, what is said to be an excessive compensatory damages award, and as to whether there was a proper basis for a punitive damages award.
The defamation proceeding in this case arose out of the aftermath of complaints about the conduct of a coach and a team member (a father and daughter) who were part of a New Zealand equestrian show jumping team who toured Australia in 2017. Kristin Cato, a lawyer, acted for the complainants.[1] She brought a defamation claim in respect of an article about the matter published on 3 December 2017 on the NZ Horse & Pony website (the Article). She contended the Article meant that she had acted unethically, unprofessionally or otherwise improperly in relation to the resolution of the complaint in various ways, or that there were grounds to suspect that she had so acted.
[1]Kristin Cato is also known by her married name, Kristin Manson.
At trial before Robinson J and a jury, the jury found that the Article was defamatory of Ms Cato in the manner she had alleged. It awarded general and aggravated damages of $225,000 and punitive damages of $15,000 against Manaia Media Ltd as the publisher of NZ Horse & Pony, Rowan Dixon as the sole director and shareholder of the publisher, and Jane Thompson as the author of…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Manaia Media Limited v Cato and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] NZCA 233
Decision Date: 12 June 2025 at 11 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

- **Parties, Dispute, and Court:**
Manaia Media Limited, Rowan Dixon, and Jane Thompson (appellants) appealed against Kristin Pia Cato (respondent) in relation to a defamation case heard in the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The appeal pertained to an article published by NZ Horse & Pony, alleging misconduct by a coach and a team member of a New Zealand equestrian show jumping team that toured Australia in 2017. The article was deemed defamatory of Ms. Cato, leading to a trial where the jury found the article defamatory and awarded damages against the appellants.

- **Legal Issues:**
The appeal raised several legal issues, including the application of the public interest defence in defamation proceedings, the admissibility of certain evidence, the interpretation of the meaning of the defamatory words, the appropriateness of the compensatory and punitive damages awarded, and whether the damages were an unjustifiable and unreasonable limit on the right to freedom of expression.

- **Court's Reasoning and Outcome:**
The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial. The Court found issues with the trial judge's handling of evidence, particularly in relation to the public interest defence, and the manner in which the jury was directed to assess the meanings conveyed by the article. The Court also found the award of damages to be excessive. The Court concluded that the errors made during the trial were significant enough to warrant a retrial, and while the award of damages was excessive, it was not necessary to set a specific amount for the retrial given the need for a new trial. The Court also set aside the costs order in the High Court.

Orders