Green light for Hubbard's libel suit against NBR

Auckland Mayor Dick Hubbard will still get his day in court after the High Court ruled his defamation suit against the National Business Review newspaper can proceed.

Lawyers for the NBR went to court this month arguing Mr Hubbard had played fast and loose with court process when he went public on details of his case against the paper.

But Justice Geoffrey Venning said Fourth Estate Holdings - the NBR's parent company - had failed to prove Mr Hubbard's actions unfairly prejudiced the paper.

Mr Hubbard had claimed stories written by the NBR accusing him of lying about his company's financial and environmental performance during a televised debate were defamatory.

As well as filing a claim with the court, Mr Hubbard lambasted the paper publicly, accusing it of "gutter journalism" and carrying out a "hatchet job" on him.

Lawyers for the paper claimed the resulting publicity showed disregard for the court, to the point of contempt, and could influence a jury.

Justice Venning rejected that argument, however, saying more than a year would have passed by the time the matter went to trial.

It was unlikely Mr Hubbard's comments about the NBR would be remembered by that time, he said.

If anything, all that would remain in the jury's mind by trial would be "the unseemly nature of the [mayoral campaign] itself, rather than the comments made by Mr Hubbard about the merits of his claim against the NBR".

He ruled there was no evidence the NBR had felt "gagged" or "intimidated" by Mr Hubbard's actions, quoting the author of an NBR article as saying: "We haven't defamed anyone ... we may have upset some people, and we make no apology for that. If we weren't, we would not be doing our job."

Justice Venning described those comments as "hardly the words of an intimidated defendant".

But Mr Hubbard did not emerge from the ruling unscathed either.

Justice Venning blasted as "particularly objectionable" his public comment that the defamation case was "both watertight and simple".

"Mr Hubbard's statements as to the strength of his case were, as he has accepted, entirely inappropriate. They were decidedly unwise and objectionable.

"They should not have been made. It is extremely unfortunate that such statements were made by someone in his position."

Mr Hubbard's counsel, Grant Illingworth, QC, said his client would make no comment on the ruling as the matter was still before the court.

It is not known whether counsel for Fourth Estate Holdings will appeal the decision.

Mr Hubbard has also dropped his legal proceedings against Brian Nicolle, the campaign manager for former Auckland City mayor John Banks.

Police announced this week that Mr Nicolle had been cleared of any wrongdoing for his part in distributing a series of newspaper articles about Mr Hubbard during last year's local body elections.

Mr Hubbard, who was advised by his lawyers yesterday to drop the case, said he had taken the action not just for himself but on behalf of all candidates who stand for public office.

"I hope that the interpretation by police doesn't mean in future over-enthusiastic campaign managers can take similar action, admit they did it, and then claim the defence 'I didn't tell the candidate'.

"If it's not the breach of the law it's a travesty of justice," said Mr Hubbard.

Mr Hubbard alleged Mr Nicolle breached the Local Electoral Act by distributing reprinted copies of a series of National Business Review articles that were not authorised by the candidate or the candidate's agent. The offence carried a fine of up to $1000.

Auckland City police investigated the allegation and found no evidence of an offence under the act. The police dismissed another allegation that Mr Banks' electoral expense return should have included the cost of printing and distributing the newspaper articles.

Mr Nicolle said that he believed the law was very clear and he had done nothing wrong. He was pleased the matter was over but did not wish to comment further.

Mr Nicolle, who resigned as Mr Banks' campaign manager after he admitting he "facilitated the distribution" of the articles, has never said who paid for the articles. Mr Banks has repeatedly said he knew nothing about the reprinting and distribution.

Mr Nicolle's lawyer, Judith Ablett Kerr, QC, said the allegation and "sometimes ill-informed discussion" had caused Mr Nicolle considerable distress.

He hoped he would now be permitted to get on with a normal life.