Damages for Defamation: A Critique and Proposal for Reform

Abstract

This article critiques the current judicial approach to damages for the tort of defamation, exemplified in the recent case of Siemer v Stiassny. Finding the approach lacking, the article proposes that the time is right for New Zealand to impose an upper limit on the quantity of awards for defamation, as has been done in comparable jurisdictions. The judges in the Siemer regarded it as the worst case of defamation in the history of the British Commonwealth. It led to the largest award of damages for defamation in New Zealand thus far – almost $1,000,000. The article first sets out the facts and judgments of the case. It then critiques the judges’ approaches under four heads: (1) the breakdown of the damages award into three distinct categories; (2) the effects of the plaintiff’s being debarred from defending proceedings; (3) the true comparability of the two cases it considers; and (4) whether the decision is consistent with a wider range of defamation cases. The article then goes onto argue that, in view of the Siemer case, the judiciary should impose an upper limit on the quantity of damages awarded for defamation in the light of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and the experiences of comparable jurisdictions ...