Smith v King - [2021] NZHC 1252

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2021-409-000044

[2021] NZHC 1252

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

RAYMOND BRUCE SMITH

Plaintiff

AND

GEOFFREY KING

First Defendant

AND

ANTHEA KEENAN

Second Defendant

Hearing: (Determined on the Papers)

Counsel:

B M Russell and M D W King for the Plaintiff

Judgment:

31 May 2021

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 31 May 2021 at 3 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SMITH v KING [2021] NZHC 1252 [31 May 2021]

[1] Mr Raymond Bruce Smith (Mr Smith) applies for judgment by way of formal proof with respect to his claim in defamation against the defendants.

[2] The first defendant, Geoffrey King (Mr King), was served with these proceedings on 2 March 2021. According to the affidavit of the process server, Mr van Beek, Mr King agreed to accept service by email and requested a hard copy of the documents be left at his property. Mr King confirmed receipt of the email and hard copies by email dated 2 March 2021.

[3] The second defendant, Anthea Keenan (Ms Keenan), was served by email on 8 March 2021. Ms Keenan requested the documents be served by email with a hard copy sent by courier. On 2 March 2021, Ms Keenan posted on her personal Facebook page a “Media Release” in which she referred to the proceedings. It appears Mr King had provided her a copy. Ms Keenan has made other Facebook posts since 2 March 2021 referring to Mr Smith trying to silence the defendants through using the court system.

[4] Accordingly, I am satisfied each defendant has been served with the proceedings.

[5] It is now 31 May 2021. The defendants have taken no steps to defend these proceedings, hence Mr Smith now seeks judgment by way of formal proof.

[6] Counsel for Mr Smith has filed submissions in support of the application. The first issue is liability, that is, whether the defendants have defamed Mr Smith. If liability is established, the second issue to be addressed is, what relief should follow.

Background

[7] The plaintiff has been Mayor of the Westland District Council (WDC) since 2016. He has been involved in local governance roles on the West Coast of New Zealand since 1986.

[8] In Mr Smith’s affidavit, sworn 12 May 2021, filed in support of his formal proof application, he recounts years of what he says were allegations against him by

Ms Keenan of, amongst other things, corruption and fraud. Ms Keenan made the allegations largely in letters and emails to the editor of the Hokitika Guardian newspaper and to Local Government Departments.

[9] From approximately October 2016 when he was elected Mayor, up until the present time, Mr Smith says Ms Keenan has also regularly published false and defamatory statements about him and WDC employees on her personal Facebook profile.

[10] From about October 2018, Mr Smith says Mr…

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 Smith v King

Details

AGLC: Smith v King [2021] NZHC 1252
Case: [2021] NZHC 1252
Decision Date: 31 May 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Raymond Bruce Smith, the Mayor of Westland District Council, applied for judgment by way of formal proof against Geoffrey King and Anthea Keenan, who published defamatory statements about him on Facebook. The court was required to determine whether the statements were defamatory, and if so, whether Keenan was also liable as a co-publisher. The court found that the statements were defamatory, as a reasonable person would infer the meanings pleaded by Smith. The court also found that Keenan was liable as a co-publisher as she did not remove the posts within a reasonable time, thereby endorsing the statements. However, the court refused to grant a permanent injunction as it would curtail freedom of expression and was not an appropriate remedy in this case.

The court ordered that both King and Keenan were liable to Smith in defamation and ordered them to pay costs on a solicitor-client basis. The court declined to grant a permanent injunction as it would curtail freedom of expression and was not an appropriate remedy in this case. The court noted that any future defamatory statements would be viewed harshly and may result in repercussions.

Orders