Ordered to pay $240,000 damages, Manaia Media could not claim its defamatory comments about lawyer Kristin Cato were justified on public interest grounds. Comments in New Zealand Horse & Pony painting Ms Cato as acting in an unethical and unprofessional manner had no relevance to Manaia’s defence in court that it was acting in the public interest by questioning governance issues at Equestrian Sports New Zealand.
Following a 2017 tour of Australia by a New Zealand equestrian team, complaints of unacceptable behaviour by some team members led to a private mediation. Details have not been made public. Ms Cato acted for the complainants. The Australian tour and its consequences resulted in online discussion within the equestrian community about how the complaints were resolved.
The High Court was told Horse & Pony website published a December 2017 article which called into question both Equestrian NZ’s handling of the dispute and Ms Cato’s subsequent release of a media statement. Horse & Pony claimed Ms Cato’s media release both breached confidentiality rules at the mediation and since it was not a general media release was designed to financially benefit a rival publication produced by her mother.
Ms Cato was awarded $240,000 damages by a jury, deciding the Horse & Pony comments defamatory. Justice Robinson was then asked to rule whether the article, even though defamatory, could be excused on public interest grounds. Published statements, even if untrue, can be justified if they are on a matter of public interest and the published communication was made responsibly.
Equestrian NZ’s complaints procedure is a matter of general public interest, Justice Robinson said. But no reference to Ms Cato was needed to further this discussion, he ruled. The article did not need to mention her at all, either directly or indirectly. Nor did it need to mention Ms Cato’s mother, he said. Manaia did not need to include defamatory comments about Ms Cato in order to make public comment about the performance of Equestrian NZ.
Cato v. Manaia Media Ltd – High Court (3.03.23)
23.027