Legal Research
Cases
Staples v Freeman

Staples v Freeman

Case [2021] NZHC 1308 4 June 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-000309

[2021] NZHC 1308

BETWEEN
BRYAN DOUGLAS STAPLES

First Plaintiff

AND

CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE 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: 23 March 2021

Appearances:

P A Morten for Plaintiffs

No appearance for Defendants

Judgment:

4 June 2021

JUDGMENT OF DOOGUE J

This judgment was delivered by me on 4 June 2021 at 12.30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar Date:

STAPLES v FREEMAN [2021] NZHC 1308 [4 June 2021]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Overview [1]

Background [6]

The posts [16]

Issues for determination [29]

Evidence on behalf of Mr Staples [33]

Were defamatory statements made about Mr Staples? [39]

The Facebook posts [45]

The District Court documents [47]

Mr Peters’ statements in Parliament [60]

Did Mr Freeman publish the statements? [64]

The Facebook posts [65]

The District Court documents [66]

Counterfactuals [86]

Absolute privilege [87]

Remedies [102]

Declaration [103]

Damages [104]

The gravity of the defamation [107]

The extent of the publication [110]

Can Mr Freeman be liable for harm caused by the first Campbell Live
programme?  [122]
The harm suffered by Mr Staples  [133]
Aggravated damages  [152]
Overall assessment  [155]
Punitive damages  [157]
Interest  [160]

Costs [169]

Result [170]

Overview

[1] Mr Bryan Staples, the first plaintiff in the proceedings, and his company Claims Resolution Services Ltd (CRS), the second plaintiff, provide assistance to homeowners with unresolved Earthquake Commission (EQC) and insurance claims for damage caused by the Canterbury earthquakes sequence. These proceedings involve a claim that the defendants defamed Mr Staples and CRS when they made allegations of fraudulent and illegitimate practices by Mr Staples and CRS.

[2] The second defendant is Mediaworks TV Ltd (Mediaworks). The third is Kate McCallum, a television producer. The fourth defendant is Tristram Clayton, a journalist. Both the third and fourth defendants were employed by Mediaworks at all relevant times. For convenience all three are referred to as Mediaworks.

[3] This application concerns only the first defendant, Mr Richard Logan Freeman (Mr Freeman). Mr Freeman has failed to file a statement of defence to the claims made against him, so this claim proceeded by way of formal proof.

[4] The Court’s role is to establish whether Mr Staples has established the elements of his claim and, if he has, to consider the issue of remedies. The standard to which I am required to be satisfied on the plaintiff’s evidence “is much the same as it would be if the proceeding had gone to trial”.1 The applicable standard of proof is therefore the balance of probabilities. In this formal proof setting I am not required to consider hypothetical affirmative defences.2

[5] If I am persuaded the elements of the claim are proven Mr Freeman will be liable for defamation. I would then assess Mr Staples’ claims for:

(a)general damages (including aggravated…

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

Details

AGLC: Staples v Freeman [2021] NZHC 1308
Case: [2021] NZHC 1308
Decision Date: 4 June 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The plaintiffs, Bryan Staples and his company Claims Resolution Services (CRS), brought a defamation claim against Richard Freeman. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants made defamatory statements about Mr Staples and CRS. The defendants were found in default for failing to file a statement of defence. The court had to determine whether Mr Freeman defamed Mr Staples and, if so, what remedies were available to Mr Staples. The court found that the Facebook posts and the District Court documents were defamatory. The court found that Mr Freeman published the Facebook posts and the District Court documents. The court found that Mr Freeman was liable for the harm caused by the Facebook posts, the District Court documents, Mr Peters’ speech in Parliament and the first Campbell Live programme. The court found that Mr Freeman should be liable for $350,000 in damages, interest from the date of the judgment, and costs on a 2B basis together with disbursements as certified by the Registrar.

Orders