Legal Research
Cases
Newton v Dunn

Newton v Dunn

Case [2017] NZHC 2083 29 August 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND BLENHEIM REGISTRY

CIV-2012-406-000272 [2017] NZHC 2083

BETWEEN
LORETTA ANNE NEWTON

Plaintiff

AND

SUSAN MAREE DUNN First Defendant

FAYE COLLEEN LEOV and BERNARD LESLIE LEOV

Second Defendants

Hearing: 25 July 2017-28 July 2017; 31 July 2017 to 4 August 2017

Counsel:

R J B Fowler QC and P J Radich for Plaintiff
No appearance for First Defendant
C J Griggs and C M Kenworthy for Second Defendants

Judgment:

29 August 2017

JUDGMENT OF COLLINS J

PART I INTRODUCTION

[1] The genesis of this defamation proceeding was a dispute between Mrs Newton, when she was the Principal of the Rai Valley Area School (the School) and Mrs Leov, when she was the School librarian. Their dispute had a profound effect on their lives and careers. It also divided their community.

[2] Mrs Leov believed she was bullied by Mrs Newton. On the other hand, Mrs Newton believed Mrs Leov was refusing to comply with lawful directions
which she gave Mrs Leov in her capacity as the School Principal.

NEWTON v DUNN [2017] NZHC 2083 [29 August 2017]

[3] The dispute between Mrs Leov and Mrs Newton resulted in Mrs Leov taking an extended period of sick leave and being dismissed from the School in 2008. She responded with a claim for unjustified dismissal against the School Board of Trustees (the Board). The Board issued a public apology to Mrs Leov in 2010. Mrs Leov never returned to the School. In 2011 Mrs Newton resigned, primarily because of her dissatisfaction with the way the Board managed Mrs Leov’s employment dispute and her own associated health issues.

[4] Approximately two years after Mrs Leov’s employment dispute was resolved, she and her husband engaged Mrs Dunn to write a book about her experiences and to expose Mrs Newton as a bully. To assist in gaining information, Mrs Dunn sent a letter dated 10 September 2012 to approximately 50 people, most of whom, lived in the Rai Valley community. This letter is the primary focus of this proceeding. She also sent a letter to representatives and members of Mrs Newton’s church and a further letter to people associated with the Rai Valley community.

[5] The letter of 10 September 2012 contained a number of profoundly serious allegations against Mrs Newton. Those allegations are reduced to six imputations in this judgment, the most damaging of which were that Mrs Newton bullied Mrs Leov and others in the School and “destroyed the lives of others”.

[6] The term “workplace bullying” is central to this proceeding. In the context of

this case, there are three elements to the ordinary meaning of that term:

(1)It involves unreasonable and persistent conduct by one person against another.1

(2) The conduct in question is unwarranted and harmful to the recipient.

1 Refer Duncan Black and others (eds) Collins English Dictionary (10th ed, HarperCollins Publishers, Glasgow, 2009) for the definition of “bully”: “a person who hurts, persecutes, or intimidates weaker people”; Tony Deverson and Graeme Kennedy (eds)

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 Newton v Dunn

Details

AGLC: Newton v Dunn [2017] NZHC 2083
Case: [2017] NZHC 2083
Decision Date: 29 August 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Loretta Newton brought defamation proceedings against Susan Dunn, Faye Leov, and Bernard Leov (the defendants). The proceedings were in respect of three letters written by Mrs Dunn at the instigation of Mrs and Mr Leov. Mrs Dunn had agreed to write a book based on Mrs Leov's experiences as the librarian of Rai Valley Area School. Mrs Dunn wrote three letters containing defamatory statements about Mrs Newton. The first two letters were sent to approximately 50 people connected to the school and the library. The third letter was sent to a number of people connected with the Anglican Church. The defendants argued that they were not liable for the defamatory statements contained in the letters because they were not the authors of the letters. The Court held that the defendants were liable for the defamatory statements in the letters. Mrs and Mr Leov had authorised and assisted Mrs Dunn in publishing the letters. They were liable as joint publishers of the defamatory statements contained in the letters. The Court held that the defendants' defences of truth and honest opinion failed. The Court recommended that the defendants publish a letter correcting the defamatory statements and apologising to Mrs Newton. If the defendants failed to comply with the recommendation, they would be liable for damages in the sum of $100,000. The Court ordered the defendants to pay Mrs Newton's costs on a solicitor/client basis.

Orders