University of Newland v Nationwide News Pty

The Supreme Court of New Zealand was asked to determine whether the University of Newlands Limited and its shareholder and director, Rochelle Marianne Forrester, could appeal a decision by the Court of Appeal. The respondents had brought a defamation claim against Nationwide News Pty Limited, the publisher of The Australian, in the High Court, but the Court of Appeal dismissed the proceeding, stating that the appellants had failed to show that they had a good arguable case against the respondent on the merits. The appellants sought to raise several points in their proposed appeal, but none of these points raised any question of general or public importance. The main issue was whether the appellants could prove any sort of publication in New Zealand or that the second appellant had been identified in the statements with which they had taken issue.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the appellants had a good arguable case against the respondent on the merits and if the Court of Appeal had correctly applied the principles laid down in Kuwait Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd (No2) [1989] 2 NZLR 50 at 54 and further applied by the Court of Appeal in Stone v Newman (2002) 16 PRNZ 77. The Court held that the Court of Appeal had applied the principles correctly and that the issues raised by the appellants did not raise any question of general or public importance. The Court further held that the principles laid down in Kuwait Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd (No2) and Stone v Newman were an entirely orthodox approach under New Zealand law, and that the Court was not persuaded that it was necessary in the interests of justice for this Court to hear the proposed appeal.

The Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal under s 13 of the Supreme Court Act 2003 and ordered that the appellants pay the respondent costs in the sum of $2,500 plus disbursements, to be fixed if necessary by the Registrar. The Court held that the appellants had not shown a good answerable case on the merits, and that the issues raised by the appellants did not raise any question of general or public importance. The Court further held that the principles laid down in Kuwait Asia Bank EC v National Mutual Life Nominees Ltd (No2) and Stone v Newman were an entirely orthodox approach under New Zealand law.