Syed v Malik

[2023] NZHC 1676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTEPOTI ROHE

CIV-2018-404-530

[2023] NZHC 1676

BETWEEN

ZAINULABIDIN SYED

Plaintiff

AND

AMIR FAZAL MALIK

First Defendant

AND

TRINITY JOAN WILSON

Second Defendant

Hearing:	20–22 March 2023
Counsel:	D A Jaques for Plaintiff G A Paine for Defendants
Judgment:	30 June 2023

JUDGMENT OF ISAC J

Introduction and procedural background

[1]                 Mr Zainulabidin Syed and Mr Amir Malik are former business associates. By early 2016 their relationship had broken down. Mr Syed brought an application, successfully, for possession of a residential property Mr Malik, his wife (the second defendant, Ms Wilson) and their two  children  had  been  living  in.1  In  response, Mr Malik began what he described as a “public awareness campaign” involving the publication of defamatory statements which damaged Mr Syed’s reputation and caused harm to his business interests.

[2]                 In 2018 Mr Syed commenced proceedings in defamation against the defendants. On 30 August 2018, Churchman J entered judgment against Mr Malik and

1      Syed Family Ltd v Malik [2017] NZHC 1022 at [56].

SYED v MALIK [2023] NZHC 1676 [30 June 2023]

Ms Wilson for liability on 20 causes of action, each of which related to the publication of a separate defamatory statement.2 However, he declined to award damages of

$10.9 million as sought by Mr Syed and directed the plaintiff to replead his case providing full particulars of the claims against each of the defendants.3 He also made an order restraining the defendants from publishing further defamatory statements about the plaintiff.4 Churchman J also noted that:5

…any repetition of the defamatory statements or any failure to delete or remove them (to the extent that it is within the control of the defendants), is likely to aggravate the amount of damages that might be awarded to the plaintiff.

[3]                 With judgment as to liability entered, the remaining issue for determination is the extent to which Mr Syed is entitled to recover damages. In a second amended statement of claim, Mr Syed did not pursue his previous claim for losses said to have arisen from the collapse of two business ventures as a result of the defendants’ conduct. He instead limited his claim to general damages which at trial he argued should be in the range of $150,000 to $300,000.

[4]This judgment determines the extent of the defendants’ liability to Mr Syed.

The trial and my factual findings

[5]                 The trial took place over three days without a jury.6 Mr Syed was the only witness for the plaintiff. Mr Malik and Ms Wilson gave evidence in their own defence. A number of contemporaneous documents—mostly comprised of the relevant publications—were also produced in evidence.

Mr Syed and his business association with the defendants

[6]                 Mr Syed was born in Pakistan but immigrated to Australia at a relatively young age. He is now in his early 50s and described having spent 30 years in Australia first in education and then in business, primarily as a property developer.