Mediaworks TV Ltd v Staples - [2019] NZCA 133

For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA436/2018
[2019] NZCA 133

BETWEEN	MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED First Appellant KATE MCCALLUM Second Appellant TRISTRAM CLAYTON Third Appellant
AND	BRYAN DOUGLAS STAPLES First Respondent CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED Second Respondent

Hearing:	21 February 2019, further submissions received on 8 April 2019
Court:	Miller, Asher and Clifford JJ
Counsel:	J G Miles QC and T F Cleary for Appellants P A Morten and J Moss for Respondents
Judgment:	3 May 2019 at 10 am

JUDGMENT OF MILLER, ASHER AND CLIFFORD JJ

AThe application for an extension of time to apply for a review of the Associate Judge’s decision is granted.
BWe determine the review sitting as a full court of the High Court.
CThe application to file a memorandum supporting the judgment on other grounds is granted.
DThe review is allowed.
EThe High Court order to direct disclosure without redactions is quashed.
FThe effect of allowing this review is that the part of the High Court judgment directing the disclosure of each of the documents in part 3 of the schedule to their affidavits without redactions is declined, but only to the extent that the documents or parts of them identify the informants who have provided the documents to Mediaworks.
GIn all other respects issues of the adequacy of discovery remain open and are not determined by this review. It is open to the respondents to seek a further hearing in relation to the discovery issues that have not been determined, or to bring another application in relation to discovery. In particular, the issue of whether the documents do in fact fall into the category of protected documents under s 68(1) remains open.
HThe respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay one set of costs to the appellants on a 2B basis under the High Court Rules 2016 and usual disbursements.

The costs orders made by the Associate Judge in the High Court are quashed. If the parties cannot agree on those High Court costs, the issue should be determined in the High Court in accordance with this judgment.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Asher J)

Introduction

The issue that is raised before us is whether the appellants as journalists are entitled to invoke the statutory protection of sources provided for in s 68(1) of the Evidence Act 2006. The appellants are the media company, Mediaworks TV Ltd, together with two journalists who were employed by Mediaworks at the relevant time, Kate McCallum as a television producer, and Tristram Clayton as a journalist (for convenience we will refer to all three as Mediaworks).
The first respondent Bryan Staples is a director of the second respondent, Claims Resolution Service Ltd (Claims Resolution). Mr Staples and Claims Resolution are engaged in the business of assisting claimants in bringing claims for those who suffered damage to their properties in the Canterbury earthquakes of 2010…

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 Mediaworks TV Ltd v Staples 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: [2019] NZCA 133
Decision Date: 3 May 2019 at 10 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mediaworks TV Ltd and two of its journalists, Kate McCallum and Tristram Clayton, appealed a High Court decision which ordered them to disclose the identity of the informants who provided them with documents that were critical of Bryan Staples, a director of Claims Resolution Service Ltd, in relation to claims arising from the Canterbury earthquakes. Staples and Claims Resolution claimed that Mediaworks and its journalists defamed them by broadcasting and publishing complaints that were critical of their Christchurch business activities. Staples and Claims Resolution sought an order that Mediaworks disclose the identity of its informants, but Mediaworks refused to do so, claiming the protection from disclosing the identity of informants in s 68(1) of the Evidence Act. In the High Court, Staples and Claims Resolution successfully challenged the availability of that protection relying on s 68(2). The Court of Appeal allowed the review, quashed the High Court order to direct disclosure without redactions, and held that the documents or parts of them identify the informants who have provided the documents to Mediaworks. In all other respects issues of the adequacy of discovery remain open and are not determined by this review.

Orders