district court logo

Hyndman v Anderson [2018] NZDC 1360

Published 04 April 2019

Defamation — summary judgment — Christchurch earthquake property sale — Capital and Counties Bank Limited v Henty [1882] 7 AC 741 — Young v Television New Zealand Ltd [2014] NZCA 50. The defendant made an application for summary judgment in an action brought against him for defamation. The plaintiff and defendant were both members of a body corporate that was demolished during the Christchurch earthquake. The property remained undeveloped and was being marketed for sale. For various reasons, the plaintiff had opposed three separate offers for purchase. On the third occasion, the plaintiff agreed to sign the agreement, but only if the defendant and two other members of the Body Corporate “agree to anonymously donate two ambulances kitted out and delivered to the Christchurch St John Ambulance.” The executive committee members rejected it as they believed it to be unreasonable. The defendant, as the Chairman of the Executive Committee of the Body Corporate, then sent an email to all Body Corporate members. The plaintiff alleges the statement was defamatory. The Judge noted the common law definitions of defamation and the relevant defences for the defendant, namely; that the statements are true; or they are not materially different from the truth; or that they were the defendant's honest opinion. The defence provided a literal definition of each of the alleged defamatory words, and argued that the statement was both true and the defendant's honest opinion. The plaintiff argued that the communication must be considered in light of the knowledge of the recipients and that the statement cast aspersions as to the defendant's honesty and integrity. The Judge held that while one reading of the statement could be both harmless and completely true, it was also capable of sinister interpretation. That determination is for the finder of fact, and would require a full hearing. The Judge dismissed the defendant's application for summary judgment, and ordered costs to the plaintiff, as the successful party. Judgment Date: 1 February 2018.

Tags