(1) Wishart (Respondent) was the author of a book about Macsyna King. Wishart sought damages for defamation arising from comments by Murray made on a Facebook page established by Murray called "Boycott the Macsyna King book"; Murray's Twitter account (linked to Facebook page); and during radio interviews. (2) An application to strike out was made in part on the basis Murray was not the publisher of third party statements on the Facebook page. Issues included whether HC Judge was correct in finding there was an arguable case that Murray was a publisher of third party statements on the webpage. (3) Court of Appeal differed from view of HC Judge in central aspect of reasoning based on Emmens v Pottle (1885) 16 QBD 354. Emmens was not authority for the proposition that a person may be found to have published a defamatory...
(1) Successful application by Google for defendant summary judgment; unsuccessful application for strike out by Google on basis Google was not a publisher; unsuccessful application for plaintiff summary judgment by A. (2) Case considered the responsibility of a search engine provider for the content of information on third party websites accessed from search results. When A's name was searched using www.google.co.nz, search results included reference to defamatory material, and a link to a third party website. A sought summary judgment on the basis that the information was clearly defamatory and that the defendant was aware of the search results. Google applied for summary judgment claiming that (i) its ultimate parent company (Google, Inc.) owned and operated the Google search engine and (ii) publication by a search...
(1) The plaintiff, Sadiq, issued defamation and negligence proceedings against two parties, arising out of allegedly defamatory statements published on a credit reporting website. The issue for determination was whether the first defendant, Baycorp (NZ) Ltd (Baycorp), published that material. Baycorp sought summary judgment on the basis it had not published the material. The alleged facts said that another party, Baycorp Advantage Collection Services (New Zealand) Ltd (BACS), had posted the defamatory material on the website, prior to that company (and its website) being acquired by Baycorp. Sadiq argued Baycorp had the means to, and should have, removed the material from the website after it had purchased BACS. (2) HELD: The reasoning in Byrne and Urbanchich applied to online publication, and a defendant could not be...
(1) This Act offers possibly the widest safe harbour protection for "online content hosts". The Act also establishes a civil regime in respect of digital communications that breach one or more of the "Communication Principles". The Communication Principles have very low thresholds, and the civil regime is yet to come into full force. The Act establishes criminal offences for causing serious emotional harm by posting a digital communication and for inciting, counselling or procuring another person to commit suicide – even if that other person does not commit or attempt to commit suicide in consequence of that conduct. An online content host may be liable under these provisions if it fails to comply with the safe harbour procedure. (2) This Act offers protection from all civil and criminal liability, (excepting four...
(1) The Act provides protection from defamation liability for innocent disseminators that have no actual knowledge of the defamatory content complained of (Section 21). Any person who has published the matter that is the subject of defamation proceedings solely in the capacity of, or as the employee or agent of, a processor or a distributor, it is a defence if that person alleges and proves that: (a) that person did not know that the matter contained the material that is alleged to be defamatory; and (b) that person did not know that the matter was of a character likely to contain material of a defamatory nature; and (c) that person's lack of knowledge was not due to any negligence on that person's part. (2) Online content hosts may be protected from liability in defamation if they comply with the complaints provisions...
(1) A person who infringes copyright may face both civil and criminal proceedings under the Copyright Act. (i) The Act contains exemptions from infringement liability for transient & incidental copying that is an integral or essential part of a technological process, provided the original copy was not an infringing copy. (ii) The Act also contains exemptions from liability for Internet Services Providers (ISPs) and Internet Protocol Address Providers (IPAPs), provided they comply with specified obligations. (2) An ISP is defined as any person who does either or both of the following: (a) offers the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing; or (b) hosts material on websites or other electronic...