Joyce v Hooton

17 December 2019

[2019] NZHC 3356
The plaintiff sought declaratory and indemnity costs relief under the Defamation Act against the second defendant (which publishes the NBR), alleging two passages in an NBR article defamed him; and the third defendant (the sole director and shareholder of the second defendant), regarding three tweets said to endorse the article. The specific article passages are defamatory.

A reasonable reader would conclude the plaintiff was prepared to engage in unethical and improper behaviour in pursuit of his (rather than his party's) political objectives. The imputations are untrue. The meaning of the tweets is the article, or at least its defamatory imputations, was true. As untrue, the tweets are defamatory. The second and third defendant are each liable in defamation. Declarations of defendants' liability in defamation made. Plaintiff awarded solicitor and client costs.

© Scoop Media