IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY
I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE
CIV-2016-409-000309
[2021] NZHC 3237
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:
1 November 2021 (together with supplementary submissions on 8 November 2021)
Counsel:
S D Carter for Plaintiffs
B P Henry and S T Patterson for Rt Hon Mr Peters PC (Non-Party)
P J Gunn and C P C Wrightson for Attorney-General (Non-Party) (by VMR)
B J R Keith as Amicus Curiae (Non-Party) (by VMR)
Judgment:
30 November 2021
JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J
[Application for Recall]
This judgment was delivered by me on 30 November 2021 at 3.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court
Rules
Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:
STAPLES v FREEMAN [2021] NZHC 3237 [30 November 2021]
Introduction
[1] This proceeding arises from an action in defamation brought by Mr Staples against the defendants. The first defendant, Mr Freeman, did not file a statement of defence to the claim made against him and it proceeded by way of formal proof. The plaintiffs’ counsel did not refer the Court to the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 (the Act). The Court gave judgment by default against Mr Freeman for $350,000 together with interest and costs. The judgment was sealed.
[2] In determining the application, the Court found for the purpose of quantifying damages that a speech made by the Rt Hon Mr Peters PC in Parliament was defamatory of Mr Staples. The Court found that Mr Freeman arranged for certain District Court documents to be provided to Mr Peters and encouraged Mr Peters to use absolute privilege to make allegations about Mr Staples in the speech in Parliament. Mr Freeman was found liable for the harm stemming from that speech and, in addition, a television programme that replayed the speech.
[3] Mr Peters, who was not a party to the proceeding, was granted leave to apply for recall of the judgment on the basis that neither counsel for the plaintiffs nor the Court referred to the provisions of the Act and the Court would have proceeded differently had it been made aware of the Act. Mr Peters says the judgment is a breach of natural justice because he did not have the right to be heard before adverse comment was made about him.
[4]I shall deal with the latter point first.
Extent of natural justice obligations in respect of adversarial proceedings
[5] The question is whether the Court was obliged by natural justice to accord Mr Peters a right to be heard before receiving evidence said to concern him and/or before findings were made concerning his actions.
[6] Mr Henry, counsel for Mr Peters, relied upon the Erebus Royal Commission judgments for the proposition that, prior to the making of adverse findings, notice was required.1 However, that is not the standard applicable to court…
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 [2021] NZHC 3237
Case
[2021] NZHC 3237
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Staples v Freeman was an application for recall of judgment by Mr Peters, a non-party. The proceeding was a defamation action against Mr Freeman for republication of certain District Court documents in a speech in Parliament. Mr Staples sought damages from Mr Freeman for the harm stemming from Mr Peters’ speech in Parliament and Mediaworks’ subsequent republication on two Campbell Live programmes. The Court found for the purpose of quantifying damages that Mr Peters’ speech in Parliament was defamatory of Mr Staples. The Court found that Mr Freeman arranged for certain District Court documents to be provided to Mr Peters and encouraged Mr Peters to use absolute privilege to make allegations about Mr Staples in the speech in Parliament. Mr Freeman was found liable for the harm stemming from that speech and, in addition, a television programme that replayed the speech. The Court gave judgment by default against Mr Freeman for $350,000 together with interest and costs. The judgment was sealed. Mr Peters, who was not a party to the proceeding, was granted leave to apply for recall of the judgment on the basis that neither counsel for the plaintiffs nor the Court referred to the provisions of the Parliamentary Privilege Act 2014 (the Act) and the Court would have proceeded differently had it been made aware of the Act. Mr Peters said the judgment was a breach of natural justice because he did not have the right to be heard before adverse comment was made about him. The Court found the Act is the applicable law in relation to Mr Staples’ claim against Mr Freeman. The precise extent to which the judgment will be revised requires further argument. The Court granted the application for recall of the judgment. The issue of costs remains reserved.