Webster v Brewer - [2020] NZHC 3519

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND WHANGAREI REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA WHANGĀREI-TERENGA-PARĀOA ROHE

CIV-2020-488-000072

[2020] NZHC 3519

BETWEEN
ANNE WEBSTER

First Applicant

PHILIP WEBSTER
Second Applicant

ZOE SUPPORT AUSTRALIA
Third Applicant

AND

KAREN BREWER

Respondent

Hearing: 9 December 2020

Counsel:

S E Closey, Y Dong and B White for the Applicants No appearance by or on behalf of the Respondent

Judgment:

22 December 2020

JUDGMENT OF WOOLFORD J

This judgment was delivered by me on Tuesday, 22 December 2020 at 3:00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors: Russell McVeagh, Auckland

WEBSTER v BREWER [2020] NZHC 3519 [22 December 2020]

[1] This is an application by Anne Webster, Philip Webster and Zoe Support Australia for the following orders under s 16 of the Contempt of Court Act 2019:

(a)That a warrant be issued committing the respondent, Karen Brewer, to a term of imprisonment as the Court considers appropriate;

(b)That a fine be imposed on the respondent, in part or in whole, payable to the applicants in recognition of loss suffered by the applicants as a result of the respondent’s refusal to comply with a Federal Court of Australia order dated 18 June 2020 registered in New Zealand on 22 June 2020 (the Order);

(c)An award of costs in favour of the applicants for, and incidental to, the application on a solicitor-and-client basis; and

(d)Any other relief that the Court considers just.

[2] The applicants say that the respondent has fragrantly and repeatedly breached the Order, that she has demonstrated a clear disinclination to respect the authority of the Court or comply with its processes and that they have suffered ongoing harm and distress due to the nature of the breaches of the Order. The respondent has taken no steps, formal or informal, to oppose or take part in the proceeding notwithstanding service of all documents on her.

Background

[3] This matter arises out of defamation proceedings in Australia. On 1 May 2020, the applicants filed defamation proceedings against the respondent in the Victoria Registry of the Federal Court of Australia. On 22 September 2020, the Federal Court of Australia issued a judgment in the defamation proceedings awarding the applicants AUD 875,000 in relation to publication by the respondent of defamatory publications. The defamatory publications contained some of the most serious and damaging statements imaginable, including to the effect that:

(a)Anne Webster, a member of Parliament and social worker, and her husband, Philip Webster, a medical practitioner, are involved in a secret paedophilia network;

(b)Anne Webster’s family has engaged in incest, resulting in her granddaughter’s genetic defect; and

(c)Zoe Support Australia, a not-for-profit organisation that provides community-based parenting support to disadvantaged young mothers aged between 13 to 23, who otherwise lack such support and services, is a cover for the supply of vulnerable teenage girls and babies to a secret paedophilia network.

[4] In her damages judgment, Gleesen J recorded that, in text and video posts uploaded over approximately two weeks,…

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 Webster v Brewer

Details

AGLC: Webster v Brewer [2020] NZHC 3519
Case: [2020] NZHC 3519
Decision Date: 22 December 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, the case of Webster v Brewer involved an application by Anne Webster, Philip Webster, and Zoe Support Australia against Karen Brewer. The applicants sought enforcement of a Federal Court of Australia order, which had been registered in the High Court of New Zealand, through a warrant, fine, costs, and any other relief deemed appropriate. The applicants alleged that Brewer had flagrantly breached the order by posting further defamatory content on Facebook. The legal issues before the court involved the enforcement of a registered Australian judgment under the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act 2010 and the applicability of the Contempt of Court Act 2019. The court had to determine whether the criteria for contempt were met, namely, that other enforcement methods were inappropriate, and whether it was proved beyond reasonable doubt that Brewer had knowingly failed to comply with the order. The court found that the criteria were satisfied. The order was clear, Brewer had knowledge of it, and she had knowingly failed to comply with it by posting further defamatory content. The court deemed other enforcement methods inappropriate and granted the applicants' request for a fine of $5,000 to be paid in full to the applicants.

Brewer's disregard for the Federal Court's judgment and her stated intention to continue making defamatory statements warranted the imposition of the maximum fine available under the Contempt of Court Act 2019. The court ordered that Brewer pay the fine of $5,000 to the applicants. If the applicants wished to pursue costs, they were instructed to file and serve a memorandum of costs by 31 January 2021, with Brewer having the opportunity to respond by 14 February 2021. The court would then make a decision on costs based on the submissions.

Orders