Legal Research
Cases
Slater v Blomfield

Slater v Blomfield

Case [2015] NZCA 240 18 June 2015

Admissibility of Evidence

Expert Evidence

Res Judicata

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Evidence Law

Type to search within this case.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

CA678/2014
[2015] NZCA 240

BETWEEN	CAMERON JOHN SLATER Applicant
AND	MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Respondent

Hearing:	13 April 2015 (further submissions filed on 28 April 2015)
Court:	Stevens, Wild and Miller JJ
Counsel:	Applicant in person M G Beresford for Respondent
Judgment:	18 June 2015 at 2.00 pm

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 is granted.
BThe applicant is directed to:
(a)file and serve the case on appeal no later than 31 July 2015;
(b)file and serve any affidavits in support of the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence by no later than 14 August 2015; and
(c)pay security for costs and any filing fees, as well as apply for a fixture by no later than 28 August 2015.

CImmediately following 28 August 2015, the Registrar is to arrange a telephone conference with the Civil List Judge to discuss any outstanding timetabling or other issues.
DThe applicant must pay the respondent the costs of a standard application on a band A basis and usual disbursements.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Stevens J)

Introduction

The applicant, Cameron Slater, applies for an extension of time to file an appeal under r 29A of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (the Rules). He wishes to appeal a judgment of Asher J given on 12 September 2014.[1] Asher J ordered under s 68(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 (the Act) that Mr Slater (and his sources) were not protected by s 68(1). That provision, which prevents a journalist from being compelled to disclose an informant’s identity when the journalist has promised to keep their identity secret, applies to journalists who publish information in a news medium, unless a judge orders otherwise.
[1]Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221, [2014] 3 NZLR 835 [High Court judgment].
Mr Slater is being sued for defamation in the District Court by Matthew Blomfield, the respondent. The alleged defamation relates to stories Mr Slater published in 13 articles on his Whale Oil blog about Mr Blomfield. One such blog post, entitled “Who really ripped off KidsCan?”, alleged business interests with which Mr Blomfield was associated had defrauded a charitable trust for children. Other relevant articles contain extracts of emails to which Mr Blomfield is alleged to be a party. Mr Blomfield says some of the information comes from a hard drive of his. Mr Slater admits publishing the articles in question, but says they are not defamatory. He seeks to raise the defences of truth and honest opinion.
Mr Blomfield filed interlocutory applications in the District Court for orders requiring discovery and the answering of interrogatories. Mr Slater opposed those applications, on the basis he should not be compelled to disclose the information under s 68(1) of the Act. Judge Blackie rejected that claim, holding that a blog, and therefore Whale Oil, was not a news medium within the…

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 Slater v Blomfield

Details

AGLC: Slater v Blomfield [2015] NZCA 240
Case: [2015] NZCA 240
Decision Date: 18 June 2015 at 2.00 pm

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application for an extension of time to appeal a judgment of the High Court. The applicant, Cameron Slater, sought to appeal a decision that allowed Matthew Blomfield to obtain information from Slater's sources, under section 68(2) of the Evidence Act 2006. Slater argued that the Whale Oil blog, where he published articles about Blomfield, qualified as a news medium under section 68(1), thus protecting his sources. The High Court ruled against Slater, and he now appeals that decision to the Court of Appeal. The primary legal issue was whether the Court of Appeal should grant an extension of time for Slater to file his appeal, as he had missed the original deadline. Factors considered by the Court included the length of the delay, the reasons for it, the conduct of the parties, and the potential merits of the appeal. The Court found that Slater's delay was due to a misunderstanding of his appeal rights and that the appeal raised significant issues of public importance regarding the protection of journalistic sources. Consequently, the Court granted the extension of time and leave to appeal, directing Slater to file the appeal by a specified date and outlining further procedural steps.

The Court of Appeal granted Cameron Slater's application for an extension of time to appeal the High Court's decision, which allowed Matthew Blomfield to compel Slater to disclose his sources. The Court found that the delay in filing the appeal was due to Slater's misunderstanding of his appeal rights, as he had mistakenly filed an application for leave to appeal in the High Court instead of directly in the Court of Appeal. The Court acknowledged that while the delay was not significant, the issues raised by the appeal were of public importance. The appeal concerns the interpretation of section 68(2) of the Evidence Act 2006 and its interaction with the High Court Rules. The Court of Appeal noted that granting leave to appeal would allow consideration of these legal issues, particularly the protection of journalistic sources. The Court directed Slater to file the case on appeal by a specified date and outlined further procedural steps, including the need for Slater to address potential fresh evidence and the possibility of appointing an amicus curiae. Despite granting the extension and leave to appeal, the Court emphasized the indulgence extended to Slater and ordered him to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders