High Court awards subject of Facebook, YouTube posts $225,000 in damages
New Zealand’s Supreme Court has dismissed an application seeking leave to appeal in proceedings arising from allegedly defamatory statements made in emails to a group of recipients, social media posts on Facebook, and YouTube videos.
In Malik v Syed [2025] NZSC 193, the applicants were husband and wife. The first applicant and the respondent were business associates who had fallen out.
In a liability decision, New Zealand’s High Court determined that the applicants published 20 defamatory statements about the respondent from October 2016 to December 2017. In a quantum judgment, the High Court assessed damages of $225,000 in the respondent’s favour.
The applicants applied for an extension of time to challenge the High Court rulings.
New Zealand’s Court of Appeal refused to extend the time to challenge the liability decision. The appeal court found the delay inordinate and unexplained, the proposed appeal meritless, and the decision inevitable, as the applicants had admitted to publishing the defamatory statements and had pleaded no defence of truth.
Next, the appeal court extended the time to challenge the quantum judgment. The appeal court acknowledged that the judge had misexpressed himself twice in the judgment.
However, the appeal court dismissed the appeal of the quantum judgment. The appeal court ruled that the judge made factual findings with evidentiary support and correctly identified and applied the pertinent legal principles.
The appeal court saw no basis for appellate intervention, no reason to disturb the damages awarded, and no fault in the judge’s application of the principles to the facts, especially the aggravation of damages following the liability decision.
In their proposed appeal, the applicants wanted to challenge the liability decision. They belatedly sought to withdraw their admission of liability and assert a defence of responsible communication in the public interest. They also assailed the evidentiary basis for the aggravated damages and the quantum awarded.
The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed the application for leave to appeal and made no award of costs upon acknowledging that the respondent failed to participate in the application.
The Supreme Court did not consider it necessary in the interests of justice to hear and determine the appeal. The Supreme Court explained that the applicants failed to establish that this case met the leave criteria.
The Supreme Court saw no error in the appeal court’s consideration of the principles regarding the quantum of damages, particularly its assessment of aggravated damages in the context of these proceedings.
The Supreme Court also found no sufficient prospects of success to justify granting leave, no question of general or public importance requiring a review, and no risk of a miscarriage of justice in the civil context.
