In hot water

It seems Velocity are making no further comment, at least at this stage.

Nothing from Uwe Kroll, either, though to be fair those questions were only asked late last night and not everyone obsessively reads their emails every ten minutes like most Watchers and some commenters.

We do, however, have a definitive answer for the many commenters who asked whether it was possible to sue a company and whether any such action had been brought in NZ. Commenters such as our old friend Pottymouth, for instance, who put it this way:

Hey arsehole at 9.30pm.
Can't you read, moron?
You can't defame a company!
The challenge remains for you legal dickheads in here - name a case in NZ defamation law where a company successfully sued for defamation.
I'll make it easy for you.
There isn't one.

Sounds remarkably like Mickey, doesn't it? Not saying that it is, of course - but it seems that his supporters approach debate in the same way as their hero: abuse your opponents, then throw out challenges which are only obliquely relevant in the hope of diverting debate (whether or not it's been done before, or whether it was successful, doesn't excuse Mickey exposing ratepayers to an unnecessary and expensive legal battle).

Rather than assume, as various commenters have done, that a close examination of our own navels would produce an expert legal opinion we instead asked Ursula Cheer, Associate Professor and Proctor at the School of Law at the University of Canterbury and co-author (with J Burrows) of Media Law in New Zealand (5th ed) (2005). She kindly responded as follows:

LW: We understand it is possible to defame a corporation under the Defamation Act, as a corporation is a "natural person" under law?

UC: Yes, companies can sue. It doesn’t matter whether they are regarded as natural persons or not. Section 6 of the Defamation Act allows corporations to sue for damages if they can show that financial or commercial loss has occurred or is likely to occur.

LW: Commenters have alleged that it is, however, effectively impossible for a company to win such an action because it needs to show either the possibility or the fact of pecuniary loss as a result of the alleged defamation. Our own research indicates this is correct - if so, how difficult would it be, in your opinion, for a company to convince a jury that the statement had such an effect (as opposed to any number of external factors)?

UC: Whether this would be successful depends on the evidence in each case. If actual financial loss has occurred then you look to produce evidence of that eg: loss of takings, angry letters from clients, etc. Likely loss is obviously more difficult to establish. Again, the plaintiff just puts forward as much evidence as they can to support the likely loss.

LW: Other commenters have alleged that no defendant has ever been found to have defamed a company (as opposed to an individual) in New Zealand. Is this the case? If not, can you cite some case law for us?

UC: A number of cases have been successful in New Zealand and often companies sue each other. The best example is Mount Cook Group Ltd v Johnstone Motors Ltd [1990] 2 NZLR 488, where Mount Cook was able to satisfy the court that its goodwill had been damaged leading to likely loss, although the court took a conservative view and the damages were small.

We'll make it easy for you, Pottymouth, since your grasp of the language suggests a reading age of 10 or under.

Hey arsehole at 9.30pm.

On their behalf, greetings to you, emotive nincompoop @ 9.40 pm

Can't you read, moron?

They can, it seems, better than you.

You can't defame a company!

Yes, you can.

The challenge remains for you legal dickheads in here - name a case in NZ defamation law where a company successfully sued for defamation.

See above. We assume an associate professor of law and co-author of a definitive book on the subject doesn't count as a "legal dickhead"... though if you'd like to match your law degree against her LLB/LLM, by all means feel free. The "challenge" for you, by the way, is to try and debate other adults in an adult manner.

I'll make it easy for you.
There isn't one.

We'll make it even easier for you: there is, and you're an idiot.

Much as we might enjoy the sport involved in shooting the dull-witted fish in this particular barrel, this episode serves to highlight two important points:

1. Mickey's supporters, just like Mickey himself, aren't above stating wild speculation - or perhaps even known lies - as though they were fact. Comments here should be read with that in mind.
2. Even more importantly, whether or not Velocity sues, the facts are now incontrovertible. And they are that Mayor Michael Laws has knowingly and recklessly exposed the ratepayers of Wanganui to the potential of paying to defend him against a defamation suit; and to the costs that would be incurred (in terms of both punitive and actual damages and plaintiff's costs) in the event the plaintiffs were successful.

In most democracies, it'd be about now that we were hearing the word "impeachment" being bandied about.

Comments on this post are now closed.