Twenty years after agreeing to settle out of court a defamation claim alleging he was a credit risk, Hamilton accountant Philip Young filed further legal claims alleging Napier lawyer Philip Ross was in contempt of court and had breached their earlier agreement. Young’s new claims were struck out.
The High Court was told Mr Young sued in 1997, alleging he had been defamed by comments that he was a credit risk; comments made by Mr Ross both on the internet and directly to clients. This claim was subsequently abandoned with an agreement filed in court in 2000. Mr Ross agreed to take down the internet comments and both sides agreed to no further publicity.
Two decades later, Mr Young again sued, alleging Mr Ross authored a September 2018 internet blog post publicising events in Mr Young’s life subsequent to his earlier defamation claim. This included: reference to Mr Young being struck off the register of chartered accountants in 2003 for misconduct, for conduct unbecoming an accountant and for professional negligence or incompetence following investigations into his involvement with a number of finance companies; reference to his bankruptcy in 2003; and reference to his 2006 conviction for assaulting a Hamilton court security guard while resisting being taken into custody after shouting down a community magistrate during a court hearing. The High Court was told this 2018 blog post was taken down following Mr Young’s complaints, but then later re-posted by a third party.
The High Court ruled Mr Young was unable to enforce the 2000 defamation settlement agreement, even if it had been breached. Mr Young’s subsequent bankruptcy resulted in Insolvency Service taking over all legal rights he then held. That included all rights contained in the settlement agreement. It was for Insolvency Service, not Mr Young, to decide whether legal action be taken.
Separately, Mr Young’s Hamilton accounting practice Progressive Accountants Ltd sued claiming it had rights to enforce the 2000 defamation settlement agreement. Progressive was not party to this agreement. To sue as a non-party, the Contract and Commercial Law Act required Progressive to prove it was identified in the 2000 agreement by name or description as someone intended to benefit. Progressive’s claim was struck out. In what was a short four paragraph agreement between the two protagonists, Progressive was not specified as having any rights.
Young v. Ross – High Court (17.02.23)
23.022