IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CIV-2016-409-000309
[2022] NZHC 2972
BETWEEN
BRYAN DOUGLAS STAPLES
First Plaintiff
AND
CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICES LIMITED
Second Plaintiff
AND
RICHARD LOGAN FREEMAN
First Defendant
AND
MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED
Second Defendant
AND
KATE MCCALLUM
Third Defendant
AND
TRISTRAM CLAYTON
Fourth Defendant
Hearing:
On the papers
Counsel:
S D Carter for Plaintiffs
B P Henry and S T Patterson for Mr Peters (Non-Party)
P J Gunn and C P C Wrightson for Attorney-General (Non-Party) B J R Keith as Amicus Curiae (Non-Party)
Judgment:
14 November 2022
JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J
This judgment was delivered by me on 14 November 2022 at 11.00 am pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
STAPLES v CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICES LIMITED [2022] NZHC 2972 [14 November 2022]
Introduction [1]
Issues [4]
What is covered by the scope and reach of the prohibition against “questioning” of “proceedings in Parliament”?
What amounts to a proceeding in Parliament? [7]
Mr Peters’ speech [24]
Mr Freeman’s provision of information to Mr Peters [27]
Contrary indications in work of parliamentary privilege committees [53]
Propositions that emerge from a review of the Act and the case law [64]
Was the provision of information by Mr Freeman to Mr Peters for the purposes of or incidental to the transacting of reasonably apprehended business of the House?
[65]
Conclusion [75]
How may the Court refer to or rely on evidence of the remarks made in the
House? [76]
The law [77]
Certain comment on proceedings in Parliament permissible [82] No civil or criminal liability for exercising privileges of Parliament [85] Proceedings in Parliament cannot be used to determine damages [88] Conclusion as to how the Court may deal with Mr Peters’ speech [95]
How may the Court rely on reports of proceedings in Parliament? [97]
Effect on, and revision of, the substantive judgment [102]
Quantum [105]
Extent of revision of the substantive judgment [106]
Costs on the application for recall [107]
Introduction
[1] Mr Staples obtained (by formal proof) judgment against Mr Freeman in defamation, arising from Facebook posts and the provision by Mr Freeman of allegedly defamatory material to the Rt Hon Winston Peters PC (Mr Peters), who apparently used the material to make a speech in Parliament, which was then reported on by the Campbell Live programme (the substantive judgment).1
[2]In the substantive judgment, dated 4 June 2021, Mr Staples was awarded
$350,000 in damages, plus interest, costs and disbursements against Mr Freeman.
[3] On application by Mr Peters and the Attorney-General, in a judgment dated 30 November 2021, the Court recalled the substantive judgment, noting certain issues required further argument (the recall judgment).2 Further submissions were sought on the precise extent of the revision of the substantive judgment.
Issues
[4]The issues which require further examination are:
(a)what is covered by the scope and reach of the prohibition against “questioning” of “proceedings in Parliament”;
(b)whether, and to what extent, a defendant who…
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 Staples v Freeman
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Staples v Freeman [2022] NZHC 2972
Case
[2022] NZHC 2972
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This case concerned a defamation claim arising from the publication of allegedly defamatory material in a speech in Parliament by Mr Peters. The defendant, Mr Freeman, provided the material to Mr Peters. The Court was required to determine whether the provision of information to Mr Peters was protected by parliamentary privilege and, if so, how that would affect the substantive judgment. The Court found that the provision of information to Mr Peters was protected by parliamentary privilege. The Court could not refer to or rely on Mr Peters' speech to establish liability or determine damages. The Court could, however, record that the speech was made and quote from it. The Court could also refer to reports of Mr Peters' speech on television as fair and accurate reports of parliamentary proceedings, as long as it did not question the speech. The substantive judgment was revised to exclude the claim based on Mr Peters' speech. The declaration of liability, quantum, and costs were revised accordingly. The Court awarded scale costs to Mr Peters, but costs against the Court and/or the Crown were unwarranted and barred by jurisdictional grounds.