Staples v Freeman - [2018] NZHC 1604

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2016-409-000309

[2018] NZHC 1604

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

BRYAN DOUGLAS STAPLES

First Plaintiff

CLAIMS RESOLUTION SERVICE LIMITED
Second Plaintiff

AND

RICHARD LOGAN FREEMAN
First Defendant

MEDIAWORKS TV LIMITED
Second Defendant

KATE MCCALLUM

Third Defendant

TRISTRAM CLAYTON

Fourth Defendant

Hearing: 19 June 2018

Appearances:

P A Morten for Plaintiffs First Defendant in person

T F Cleary and L C Bercovitch for Second to Fourth Defendants

Judgment:

2 July 2018

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS

STAPLES v FREEMAN [2018] NZHC 1604 [2 July 2018]

Introduction

[1] The first plaintiff (Mr Staples) is a director of the second plaintiff, Claims Resolution Service Limited, (CRS). At all material times, CRS, under the direction of Mr Staples, carried on business assisting claimants against the Earthquake Commission in relation to damage to properties in the earthquake sequences in 2010 and 2011.

[2] The first defendant (Mr Freeman) was a director of Ironclad Securities Limited (Ironclad) at various times before Ironclad was removed from the Companies Register in March 2016. Ironclad operated a Facebook page at relevant times (the Facebook page). It is said that Mr Freeman was the administrator of that Facebook page.

[3] The second defendant (Mediaworks) carries on business as a television programmer of the national television channel, TV3.

[4] The third defendant (Ms McCallum) was employed at relevant times by Mediaworks as a television producer. The fourth defendant (Mr Clayton) was also employed at relevant times by Mediaworks, as a journalist or reporter.

[5] Mr Staples and CRS sue the defendants in defamation. Certain alleged defamatory statements were made on the Facebook page on three occasions, the first on 8 April 2014, and the second and third on 10 April 2014.

[6] On 11 April Mr Staples issued defamation proceedings in the District Court at Christchurch in which he sought an interim injunction. On 15 April 2014 that Court granted an interim injunction on specified terms. In May 2014 Mr Freeman, as manager of Ironclad, filed a statement of defence and affidavits. In these documents further allegations were made against Mr Staples which are also said to be defamatory.

[7]The terms of the interim injunction granted by the District Court are these:

(a)Requiring Ironclad and Messrs Richardson, Smith and Smith to remove immediately all statements and material in any way related to Mr Staples and his associated companies from the web page on Facebook operated by Ironclad and Messrs Richardson, Smith and Smith at the Internet address Ironclad and Messrs Richardson, Smith and Smith or their employees or associates from publicising any information in any way relating to the proceeding pending further order of the Court.

The persons named in paragraph (b) were associated with Ironclad.

[8] In the present case, Mr Staples and CRS plead that a third party whose identity is not known to the plaintiffs supplied to Mediaworks and Ms McCallum copies of “the District Court documents”. Mediaworks then broadcast a…

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 [2018] NZHC 1604
Case: [2018] NZHC 1604
Decision Date: 2 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Bryan Douglas Staples and Claims Resolution Service Limited (CRS) are the plaintiffs in this case against Richard Logan Freeman, Mediaworks TV Limited, Kate McCallum, and Tristram Clayton, the defendants, for defamation. The plaintiffs argue that the defendants made defamatory statements about them on various media platforms, including a Facebook page, a television program, and a website. The defendants claim honest opinion and qualified privilege as defences. The plaintiffs have made two applications to the court, the first being an order for the defendants to provide further particulars of their defence of honest opinion, and the second being an order for the defendants to provide further information about certain documents they claim are confidential. The court found in favour of the plaintiffs on both applications. In relation to the first application, the court found that the defendants' pleading of their defence of honest opinion was insufficient as it did not clearly distinguish between the facts relied on for s 38(a) and those relied on for s 38(b). The court ordered the defendants to provide particulars in a form that clearly distinguishes between these two sets of facts. In relation to the second application, the court found that the defendants' descriptions of the confidential documents were insufficient and ordered them to provide further information about the documents. The court found that the public interest in the disclosure of the identity of the informant outweighed the public interests in the communication of facts and opinions to the public by the news media, and thus the ability of the news media to assess sources of fact. The court ordered the defendants to provide an affidavit with considerably more detail than that presently provided. Costs are reserved, but will be awarded to the plaintiffs as the successful party.

Orders