Slater v Blomfield - [2014] NZHC 612

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2013-404-005218 [2014] NZHC 612

BETWEEN
CAMERON JOHN SLATER

Appellant

AND

MATTHEW JOHN BLOMFIELD Respondent

Hearing: 27 March 2014

Appearances:

Appellant in person
Respondent in person

Judgment:

28 March 2014

JUDGMENT OF ASHER J

This judgment was delivered by me on Friday, 28 March 2014 at 5.30 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Copies to:
C Slater, Auckland.
M Blomfield, Auckland.

SLATER v BLOMFIELD [2014] NZHC 612 [28 March 2014]

[1] In this defamation proceeding where both plaintiff and defendant are now self-represented, the appellant Cameron Slater seeks to appeal a decision of Judge
Blackie in the Manukau District Court in which directions were made about

interrogatories and discovery.1

It was held that s 68 of the Evidence Act 2006 which

allows journalists to refuse to disclose sources did not apply to Mr Slater’s website.

[2] In the statement of claim the plaintiff Mr Blomfield has alleged that on 17 occasions between 3 May 2012 and 6 June 2012 Mr Slater has published on the website a number of statements which it is alleged contain a meaning defamatory of him. In his decision of 26 September 2013, Judge Blackie set out a number of examples of the allegedly defamatory comments, which include references to
Mr Blomfield being a psychopath, loving extortion, being a pathological liar and

other such comments.2

The Judge recorded that in a revised statement of defence the

defendant appeared in the main to admit publishing the material complained of and on occasions to admit defamatory meanings, but raised affirmative defences
including truth and/or honest opinion.

[3] In the hearing of 2 September 2013 Judge Blackie had to consider applications for orders requiring discovery and the answering of interrogatories. Mr Slater resisted answering one question and providing documents that would disclose sources of information that had been provided to him on a confidential basis. The Judge made an order for standard discovery but made no further order in respect of interrogatories “save as to compliance with the existing notice stipulated with regard to sources”. Mr Slater’s argument that there should be no order to disclose sources because he was a journalist in terms of s 68(5) of the Evidence Act
2006 was rejected.

[4] On 1 November 2013 Mr Slater filed a “notice of application for leave to appeal” in the District Court at Manukau. The appeal was against Judge Blackie’s
decision. This document appears to have been regarded as erroneous in form by the

1 Blomfield v Salter DC Manukau CIV-2012-092-001969, 26 September 2013.
2 At [7].

District Court and was not actioned. It was not filed in the High Court, and was not therefore an appeal.3

[5] Mr Blomfield then applied for orders that Mr Slater’s assets be attached and that Mr Slater be imprisoned for contempt of court on the basis that he had not complied with Judge Blackie’s directions. In an oral decision of 25 November 2013
Judge Gittos considered…

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 612
Case: [2014] NZHC 612
Decision Date: 28 March 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Slater v Blomfield, Cameron Slater, the appellant, sought to appeal a decision made by Judge Blackie in the Manukau District Court concerning interrogatories and discovery in a defamation proceeding. The respondent, Matthew Blomfield, filed a protest to jurisdiction arguing that the appeal should not proceed. The appellant argued that he was a journalist and thus entitled to refuse to disclose sources under s 68 of the Evidence Act 2006. The High Court considered the appeal process and the relevant legislation and rules. The Court found that the appeal should be allowed to proceed as an extension of time for filing an appeal. The Court extended the time for filing the appeal to 3 April 2014 and directed that any further submissions be filed by midday on 2 April 2014. The Court reserved costs and scheduled the hearing for 3 April 2014.

Orders