Claim
and counterclaim in High Court defamation proceedings are underway between Invercargill mayor Tim
Shadbolt and councillor Karen Arnold.
Ms Arnold alleges the mayor in his
fortnightly newspaper columns questioned her honesty and integrity when she
criticised the operation of Invercargill City Holdings, owner of the city
airport and electricity supply company.
She further alleges the mayor defamed her in criticisms of her support
for proposed tourist attractions featuring tuatara and kakapo. The mayor’s column in The Southland Times dismissed one of her plans as being “a
harebrained scheme to support a parrot”.
In a preliminary High Court hearing, Ms
Arnold challenged Mr Shadbolt’s proposed defence in which he is arguing the
comments made were not defamatory, but if held to be defamatory are protected
as being honest opinion. These two
defences are inconsistent, she said. You
cannot stand behind both at the same time.
Justice Clifford ruled alternative
defences are acceptable at law, even though they may appear inconsistent to a
lay person.
Mr Shadbolt is countersuing alleging he
was defamed in correspondence Ms Arnold sent to the Southland Times editor. He
alleges the letter maligns his independence, suggests he lies to council and
that his conduct is motivated purely by animosity towards Ms Arnold. These claims have yet to be heard. Justice Clifford struck out that part of Mr
Shadbolt’s defamation claim where Ms Arnold’s letter said she had been subject
to “a rambling verbal assault”. This
phrase was not capable of a defamatory meaning, he ruled. It describes unfocused and ineffective
talk.
Arnold
v. Fairfax – High Court (23.02.16)
16.035