Wishart v Murray

Case [2013] NZHC 540


For a Court ready (fee required) version please follow this link

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2012-404-001701 [2013] NZHC 540

BETWEEN  IAN WISHART Plaintiff

ANDCHRISTOPHER ROBERT MURRAY First Defendant

ANDKERRI MAREE MURRAY Second Defendant

ANDDIMENSION DATA NEW ZEALAND LIMITED

Third Defendant

Hearing:         25 October 2012

Appearances: Plaintiff in person

D M Salmon and D Nilsson for First and Second Defendants
H B Rennie QC for Third Defendants

Judgment:      19 March 2013

JUDGMENT OF COURTNEY J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Courtney on 19 March 2013 at 4:00 pm

pursuant to R 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar / Deputy Registrar

Date………………………..

Solicitors:           Lee Salmon Long, P O Box 2026 Shortland Street, Auckland 1140

Fax: (09) 912-7109 – D Salmon / D Nilsson – Email: david.salmon@lsl.co.nz daniel.nilsson@lsl.co.nz

Gibson Sheat, Private Bag 31905, Lower Hutt

Fax: (04) 569-1571

Counsel:             H B Rennie QC, P O Box 10242 The Terrace, Wellington 6143

Fax: (04) 499-2705 – Email: hughrennie@legalchambers.co.nz

Copy to:             I Wishart, P O Box 188, Kaukapakapa, Auckland 0843

Fax: (09) 420-4770 – Email: ian@investigatemagazine.com

WISHART V MURRAY & ORS HC AK CIV-2012-404-001701 [19 March 2013]

Introduction

[1]      The deaths in 2006 of three-month-old twins, Chris and Cru Kahui from non- accidental injuries generated a significant level of public interest.  The babies’ father, Chris Kahui, was acquitted of their murder.  During the trial he suggested that the babies’ mother, Macsyna King, had inflicted the fatal injuries.  Although a coroner later found that the twins had died while in Mr Kahui’s sole care, this suggestion retained some currency in the public arena.

[2]      After the inquest, the plaintiff, Ian Wishart, wrote a book about the case called Breaking Silence.  Ms King collaborated on it.1   When the book’s impending release became known in June 2011 the first defendant, Christopher Murray, established a Facebook page called “Boycott the Macsyna King Book”.  Mr Murray used Twitter to publicise the Facebook page.  He posted comments on Twitter and on the Facebook page criticising Mr Wishart and Ms King.   The second defendant,

Kerri Murray (Christopher Murray’s wife) also posted comments on the Facebook page, as did other, unidentified people.   In addition, Mr Murray made comments about Mr Wishart and Ms King during a radio interview.

[3]      Mr  Wishart  has  sued  Mr  and  Mrs  Murray  and  Mr  Murray’s  employer, Dimension Data NZ Ltd, alleging that many of the comments made via Twitter, on the Facebook page and during the radio interviews, defamed him.  He is claiming a total of $8m.  Mr and Mrs Murray have applied to strike out the statement of claim

either  wholly or  in  part.2      The  approach  to  be  taken  in  determining  strike  out

applications is well settled.3   Only claims that are clearly untenable should be struck out.  The fact that an application gives rise to difficult legal issues does not preclude striking out.

[4]      The statements made by Mr and Mrs Murray are the subject of the first three causes of action and, in part, the fourth cause of action.…

Continue reading Wishart v Murray

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Wishart v Murray [2013] NZHC 540
Case
[2013] NZHC 540
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case concerns a defamation claim brought by Ian Wishart against Christopher Murray, Kerri Murray, and Dimension Data NZ Ltd, alleging that statements made by the Murrays on Twitter, Facebook, and during a radio interview defamed him. The Murrays and Dimension Data have applied to strike out the statement of claim on various grounds, including that the statements are not capable of bearing the pleaded meanings, that the statement of claim is prolix and oppressive, and that certain allegations against Christopher Murray are not capable of being made against him. The court found that the application to strike out the statement of claim should be dismissed, but that some allegations were not capable of bearing the pleaded meanings and some were prolix and oppressive. The court also found that the application for security for costs should be dismissed. The court directed the parties to arrange a telephone conference to discuss a timetable for filing amended pleadings.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.