Sellman v Slater - [2020] NZHC 2062

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-1312

[2020] NZHC 2062

BETWEEN
JOHN DOUGLAS SELLMAN

First Plaintiff

BOYD ANTHONY SWINBURN
Second Plaintiff

SHANE KAWENATA FREDERICK BRADBROOK

Third Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER

First Defendant

Cont’d …/2

Hearing: 17 July 2020

Appearances:

D M Salmon and J P Cundy for the plaintiffs C J Slater in person

E J Grove for the second and third defendants
W Akel and J Baigent for the fourth and fifth defendants

Date of judgment:

14 August 2020

JUDGMENT NO 9 OF PALMER J (Corrected)

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday 14 August 2020 at 1.30pm.
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Counsel/Solicitors:
D M Salmon, Barrister, Auckland William Akel, Barrister, Auckland Lee Salmon Long, Auckland
Shanahans Law Ltd, New Lynn, Auckland Chris Patterson Barrister Ltd, Auckland Andrew Walter Graham & Co, Auckland Simpson Grierson, Auckland
Official Assignee, Wellington

SELLMAN v SLATER NO 9 [2020] NZHC 2062 [14 August 2020]

CIV-2016-404-1312

… /2

CARRICK    DOUGLAS    MONTROSE GRAHAM
Second Defendant
FACILITATE        COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED
Third Defendant
KATHERINE RICH
Fourth Defendant
NEW      ZEALAND      FOOD     AND GROCERY COUNCIL INC
Fifth Defendant

Summary

[1] The plaintiffs sue the defendants for defamation, with a trial set down for four weeks from Monday 15 February 2021. On 17 July 2020, an oral examination of Mr Cameron Slater and Mr Carrick Graham was conducted before me. I also heard argument on two applications for discovery. I order Mr Graham and his company Facilitate Communications Ltd (FCL) to provide the further discovery sought by the plaintiffs, which was already encompassed in previous discovery orders.

[2] Plaintiffs in defamation are entitled to know the precise nature of a defence of truth raised against them in sufficient detail so they can meet it, whether it is raised by the author of an allegedly defamatory statement or by a non-author such as a publisher or procurer of the statement. Defendants pleading the defence of truth are required to plead particulars which are capable of proving the truth of the allegedly defamatory meanings. That puts incentives on all participants in a potentially defamatory publication to take reasonable care to avoid unlawful defamation. Mr Graham and FCL cannot seek discovery in order to fish for particulars they do not have. I decline to order the wide-ranging discovery orders they seek, other than that which the plaintiffs have offered to provide and one additional category which is related to particulars provided. That must be provided forthwith, if it has not been already.

Oral examination

[3] Rule 8.42(b) of the High Court Rules 2016 (the Rules) provides that, if a party fails to answer an interrogatory sufficiently, a Judge may order the party to attend to be orally examined. In Sellman v Slater (No 6), on 23 November 2018, I ordered the oral examination of Mr Cameron Slater and Mr Carrick Graham.1 I stated:
[60] I have examined Mr Slater’s and Mr Graham’s…

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 Sellman v Slater

Details

AGLC: Sellman v Slater [2020] NZHC 2062
Case: [2020] NZHC 2062
Decision Date: 14 August 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This proceeding involves a defamation claim by three plaintiffs against multiple defendants. The plaintiffs, John Douglas Sellman, Boyd Anthony Swinburn, and Shane Kawenata Frederick Bradbrook, are suing for alleged defamatory statements made against them. The defendants, Cameron John Slater, Carrick Douglas Montrose Graham, Facilitate Communications Limited, Katherine Rich, and the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council Inc, have been implicated in the publication and dissemination of these statements. The primary legal issues revolve around the scope and nature of discovery in defamation cases, specifically whether defendants who are not the authors of the defamatory statements must provide particulars to support their defence of truth, and the extent to which plaintiffs must disclose information related to their funding and activities.

The court examined whether Mr Graham and Facilitate Communications Limited (FCL) must discover additional invoices and documents that they do not consider relevant but the plaintiffs do. The court held that since the discovery orders previously issued were sufficiently broad to encompass the disputed invoices, Mr Graham and FCL must provide the requested discovery. The court also ruled on the application for further discovery from the plaintiffs by Mr Graham and FCL, determining that while the plaintiffs must provide certain information relevant to specific allegations made against them, they are not required to engage in a roving inquiry into their lives unrelated to the defamatory statements.

The court's reasoning emphasizes the importance of particulars in defamation cases, ensuring that defendants pleading the defence of truth provide sufficient detail for plaintiffs to meet the defence. The court concluded that the discovery sought by Mr Graham and FCL was too broad and not directly related to the specific defamatory statements at issue, while the plaintiffs' requested discovery from the defendants was limited to relevant and necessary information. The court ordered that Mr Graham and FCL provide the requested discovery forthwith, and that the plaintiffs provide limited additional information relevant to specific allegations.

Orders