Staples v Freeman - [2019] NZHC 839

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-309

[2019] NZHC 839

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: 26 March 2019

Appearances:

P A Morten and A L Austin for First and Second Plaintiffs No appearance for First Defendant

J G Miles QC and J W J Graham for Second, Third and Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

16 April 2019

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

[1] Six applications were before the Court at the commencement of the hearing on 26 March 2019. Three of the applications can be dealt with shortly, two were dealt with by submissions for practically the full day, and the outcome of the sixth may in

STAPLES & ANOR v FREEMAN & ORS [2019] NZHC 839 [16 April 2019].

part be capable of being resolved given the observations made at the conclusion of this Judgment.

[2] The first defendant took no part in the hearing. The remaining defendants are referred to as the “media defendants”. Counsel dealt with the application on the basis that the outcome would be the same for all media defendants and I adopt the same approach.

[3]The applications were:

Defendants’ applications

(i)An application for a direction that the trial be a judge alone trial.

(ii)An application for further and better discovery from the plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs’ applications

(iii)An application for further and better particulars of “Publication Facts” pleaded in accordance with s 38 of the Defamation Act 1992, along with an application for an unless order in respect of that application.

(iv)An application that four paragraphs of the Schedule of Publication Facts pleaded in support of the honest opinion positive defence be struck out.

(v)An application in respect of the adequacy of discovery said not to satisfy an order for discovery made by Associate Judge Matthews in his Judgment of 2 July 2018.

[4] The sixth arose from an amended application filed on 25 March 2019 in relation to another aspect of the defendants’ discovery, that is the treatment of Part 3 of the defendants’ list of documents which sets out documents for which confidentiality is claimed. In the amended application, the plaintiffs also sought what amounted to further and better discovery in relation to a Schedule of documents.

Defendants’ application dealt with by consent

[5] Immediately prior to the hearing, a memorandum of counsel was filed advising that the media defendants’ applications had been dealt with by consent.

[6]There are accordingly the following orders:

(i)There is an order that the trial of this proceeding be by judge alone. I record that the plaintiffs have agreed to withdraw their election for a trial by jury.

(ii)There is an order that the plaintiffs are to provide further and better discovery of the documents described in paras 4.4, 4.5, 4.7, 4.8 and 4.9 of the Canterbury Legal letter…

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 [2019] NZHC 839
Case: [2019] NZHC 839
Decision Date: 16 April 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involved a hearing before the High Court of New Zealand in relation to six applications filed in defamation proceedings. The applications concerned the adequacy of discovery, the particulars required to be pleaded in relation to the defence of honest opinion, and whether certain paragraphs of the pleadings should be struck out. The plaintiffs claimed that the defendants had failed to comply with previous orders in relation to discovery and the pleading of particulars. The defendants argued that they had done all that was reasonably expected of them given the circumstances. The court found in favour of the plaintiffs on certain points, requiring the defendants to provide further detail in relation to the discovery of documents and the pleading of particulars in support of their defence of honest opinion. The court declined to strike out certain paragraphs of the pleadings, but ordered that they be re-pleaded to exclude certain statements.

Orders