Defamation Defences - Triviality

Question 1

What does Craig v Slater 💣NZ say about the level of damage required?

Answer 1

“For a meaning to be defamatory, it must tend to affect the claimant’s reputation adversely. And it must do so in a more than minor way.

Question 2

What does Craig v Slater 💣NZ say about how this standard reflects that of the UK court?

Answer 2

“That qualification…reflects the serious harm threshold developed in UK courts , and since legislated for there”

Question 3

Why should the “more than minor” requirement be adopted?

Answer 3

• “Damage to reputation is an essential element of the course of action. Even though it is presumed to be present in most situations (ie the claimant doesn’t have to prove it), if it is by definition not present, the claimant should not be able to recover.
• “Freedom of expression is protected in section 14 of the NZ Bill of Rights Act 1990 is suggesting here, without really discussing that, that this principle needs to be protected and common law as well

Question 4

How is the NZ standard different to the UK standard?

Answer 4

In the UK Defamation Act 2013, it is stated that “A statement is not defamatory unless its publication has caused or is likely to cause serious harm to the reputation of the claimant.”

NZ favours the “more than minor” requisite threshold.