Van de Klundert v Clapperton - [2015] NZHC 425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND DUNEDIN REGISTRY

CIV-2014-412-000167 [2015] NZHC 425

BETWEEN
PIETER MATTHEW VAN DE KLUNDERT

Plaintiff

AND

PAULA GAEL CLAPPERTON Defendant

Hearing: 4 March 2015

Appearances:

L A Andersen and M Taylor-Cyphers for Plaintiff/Applicant
G Mason for Defendant/Respondent

Judgment:

10 March 2015

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE
on plaintiff ’s summary judgment application

Introduction

[1] The plaintiff (Mr van de Klundert) alleges he has been defamed by the defendant (Ms Clapperton) in an email (the email) which Ms Clapperton sent to Kings High School (the School) and to 17 other schools on 26 August 2014.

[2] In the email, Ms Clapperton said:

Good afternoon,

To introduce myself, I am Poppy Clapperton the 100% owner and sole Director of Industry Training Solutions Ltd. I have bought the South Island arm of the business off my previous business partner, Pieter van de Klundert, who operates The Learning Place based in Dunedin. He is no longer a director of or affiliated with Industry Training Solutions Ltd.

It has come to my attention that you have reported student achievements using the provider code Industry Training Solutions Ltd 7837 in 2014.

The previous South Island arm of the company ceased trading a [sic] such late last year when it became The Learning Place. As there was no

VAN DE KLUNDERT v CLAPPERTON [2015] NZHC 425 [10 March 2015]

authorisation for the Dunedin director to sign MOU’s since December 2013, after an undertaking to cease using the accreditation, I am concerned about the situation.

There may be no error or concern required, however I have no Memorandum of Understanding with your school on file authorising the use of that provider code, or any student files or copies of completed work for moderation.

So it would be appreciated if you could;

1) Check your current MOU and see which company it is with

2) If you have used Industry Training Solutions Ltd provider code 7837 in error please let me know and sort with NZQA

3) If in fact you have a 2014 MOU with Industry Training Solutions Ltd please scan and email me a copy for the company records

4) Please provide me urgently details of any outstanding student work you have that you have been authorised to use this code with

5) All MOU dated prior to today will need reauthorisation by myself to be valid

Please be assured that Industry Training Solutions Ltd and myself personally take your students [sic] learning very seriously and that from my team you will receive the very best attention.

If you would like to call me to discuss this matter, or any other matter, please call me direct on [redacted].

Kind Regards

Poppy

[3] Mr van de Klundert pleads that the three italicised paragraphs constitute a defamatory statement in that their natural and ordinary meaning is:

(a) Mr van de Klundert had acted dishonestly in reporting students’ achievements using the Provider Code Industry Training Solutions Ltd (ITS) 7837 in 2014 when he was not…

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 Van de Klundert v Clapperton

Details

AGLC: Van de Klundert v Clapperton [2015] NZHC 425
Case: [2015] NZHC 425
Decision Date: 10 March 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Pieter Matthew van de Klundert brought defamation proceedings against Paula Gael Clapperton in relation to an email she sent to 18 schools in August 2014. The plaintiff alleged that the email contained defamatory statements about him. The defendant opposed the plaintiff's application for summary judgment, asserting the defence of qualified privilege and other defences. The plaintiff sought a declaration that the defendant was liable to him in defamation and full reimbursement of his legal costs. The court dismissed the plaintiff's summary judgment application. The court held that the plaintiff had failed to provide a notice of particulars of ill-will or improper advantage, as required by section 41 of the Defamation Act 1992. The court also held that the plaintiff had not established that the defence of qualified privilege was unavailable. The court further held that the plaintiff had not shown that the court would have to conclude that declaratory relief was appropriate. The court reserved the costs of the plaintiff's application.

Orders