Slater v Blomfield - [2014] NZHC 3272

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-005218 [2014] NZHC 3272

BETWEEN CAMERON JOHN SLATER Appellant

AND

MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Judgment: 19 December 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 19 December 2014 at 4.30pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel:
J Miles QC, Auckland.

Copy to:
Appellant and Respondent.

SLATER v BLOMFIELD [2014] NZHC 3272 [19 December 2014]

[1] I refer to my minute of 5 November 2014. It is necessary to determine two issues:

(a) Whether this proceeding should be transferred to this Court; and

(b) The appropriate costs order on a hearing under s 68 of the Evidence

Act 2006.

The transfer of proceedings

[2] Mr Blomfield issued these proceedings in the District Court. He asserts that at the time he filed the original statement of claim he did not realise what impact the allegedly defamatory stories would have on his life. He now says that the damages award that he will seek could well exceed $200,000. He cites other Court decisions
in support of this.1

[3] He also asserts that the matters to be raised at trial involve novel and complicated questions which are more suited to the High Court. He points out that there has already been a hearing in the High Court not only in relation to an appeal against an interlocutory order, but in relation to a s 68(2) of the Evidence Act application. The matter was of sufficient complexity for amicus curiae to be appointed. In oral submissions Mr Blomfield also raised in abstract the possibility that he might seek a jury trial.

[4] Mr Slater opposes the transfer. He argues that there is no special factor about the case warranting transfer. He points out that Mr Blomfield has chosen a particular jurisdiction and should stick to it. He is concerned about further costs.

[5] Under s 43(6) of the District Courts Act 1947 the High Court may transfer to that Court from the District Court “... if the High Court or Judge thereof thinks it desirable that the proceeding should be heard and determined in the High Court.” It has been observed of the discretion in Fuehrer v Thompson2 that it is for the
applicant to establish the desirability of the transfer:

1 Cushing v Peters HC Wellington CP257/93, 8 September 1993.
2 Fuehrer v Thompson [1981] 1 NZLR 699 at 701.

It involves a consideration of such matters as the amount of the claim, its nature and complexity, the type of issue raised by the pleadings, its public or other importance and such other considerations as relate to the proceedings and render it desirable that they be so heard. Once the Court is satisfied of the desirability of removal, the discretion becomes exercisable. Under that head other issues may arise relating more directly to the justice of the case in the particular circumstances. Factors such as delay in making 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 [2014] NZHC 3272
Case: [2014] NZHC 3272
Decision Date: 19 December 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Slater v Blomfield, the High Court of New Zealand was called upon to determine whether the defamation proceedings brought by Matthew John Blomfield against Cameron John Slater should be transferred from the District Court to the High Court. Additionally, the court had to decide on the appropriate costs order for the hearing under section 68 of the Evidence Act 2006. Blomfield had filed the proceedings in the District Court but argued that the case's complexity, the potential damages exceeding $200,000, and the novel and complicated questions involved warranted a transfer to the High Court. Slater opposed the transfer, citing no special factors warranting it and the fact that Blomfield had chosen the District Court jurisdiction initially.

The court examined the transfer under section 43(6) of the District Courts Act 1947, considering factors such as the complexity of the case, the nature and amount of the claim, and the public importance of the case. The court found several factors in favour of transfer, including the complexity of the case, the potential for significant damages, and the option for a jury trial in the High Court. The court concluded that the transfer was desirable and imposed conditions to ensure fairness, including requiring Blomfield to reimburse Slater for reasonable disbursements related to the transfer. Furthermore, the court ruled on the costs for the hearing under section 68 of the Evidence Act, awarding one-third of the costs to Blomfield due to Slater's delay in filing the appeal, while noting that both parties had partial success in the proceedings.

Orders