Organisers of the Cherry Tree Festival near Hamilton are suing Stuff and one of its former journalists for defamation. Photo / David Rose
Organisers of the Cherry Tree Festival near Hamilton are suing Stuff and one of its former journalists for defamation. Photo / David Rose
Stuff and its former journalist Gary Farrow are being sued for defamation by the organisers of an iconic cherry blossom festival over a series of articles published when the festival failed to get resource consent at the 11th hour.
Also included in the claim by Anne Cao and Paul Oulton is a radio podcast by Farrow after he left Stuff in 2020.
The pair claim the articles caused them mental anguish, incited a death threat, and resulted in Oulton being shouted at and called a liar in his local supermarket.
The six news articles, five written by Farrow in 2019, related to the New Zealand Cherry Blossom Festival that was set to run over 10 days in September that year.
At the time it was reported by Stuff that Cao and Oulton were denied resource consent from Waikato District Council for the upscaled festival.
It had run the two years prior but over three days with less than 1000 people each day and without the need for a resource consent.
In 2019 it was expected thousands more would attend the two-hectare property called English Cherry Tree Manor on Matangi Rd, outside Hamilton, but a neighbour raised concerns.
Justice David Johnstone told the jury ultimately the festival did not go ahead that year.
Cao and Oulton claim the articles were defamatory and damaged their reputation.
Their lawyer, Kalev Crossman, said the case boiled down to three ways the plaintiffs claimed they were wrongly portrayed including;
That they were disorganised and incompetent;
They did not follow the rules or were lawbreakers;
They were dishonest and fraudulent.
But unusually the pair were not seeking damages, Crossland said.
“It’s not about the money.”
They simply wanted to clear their names, he said.
Media company Stuff is defending a case of defamation for a series of articles about a cherry blossom festival.
Crossland asked the jury to consider that in a modern defamation case, compared to the pre-internet era, newspaper stories were no longer tomorrow’s “fish and chip wrapper”, but permanently online.
“They live on. For those people who read these articles and formed impressions of Anne and Paul, these impressions remain.”
Crossland told the jury the four September 2019 articles provoked “hateful” online comment, or reinforced or fuelled further online abuse.
He said the jury would hear from Cao, a former professional basketballer from China, and Oulton, an IT consultant from England, about how they tried to get the correct permission to run the festival.
The jury trial is a civil case being presided over by Justice David Johnstone (left). Photo / NZME
After the success of 2018, they decided to expand the event to 10 days and provide accommodation, and they sought resource consent.
Unbeknown to them, a neighbour complained to the council and days before the event was due to go ahead on September 20, with tickets already sold, council staff informed the couple the resource consent application would need to be publicly notified for 20 working days.
They decided to scale back the festival to eight days, and let ticket holders know via their website.
Despite having traffic management approved, the pair received an abatement notice warning that if the festival attracted more than the amount of people allowed at a temporary event, they could be fined.
The plaintiffs said they were coming under fire on Facebook because of the Stuff articles about the situation, and Cao and Oulton decided not to hold the event.
The court was told the articles included headlines that the organisers had gone into liquidation, leaving ticket holders “fuming”, and later in December that year, that they still owed money.
Crossland claimed statements in the stories that implied the organisers had not sought resource consent previously when they should have, and that they were keeping half the refund, were not true.
He said their evidence would be that they never kept any money and instead borrowed to repay the ticket holders.
Crossland said Oulton wrote to Stuff in July 2020 asking for an apology, which he didn’t get, before seeking mediation, which Stuff refused.
Robert Stewart, lawyer for Stuff, will present its defence later this week.
The jury will hear recordings of interviews by Farrow and see transcripts of his notes.
The trial is expected to take two weeks and hear from seven witnesses, including Farrow and other journalists, with Cao first to take the stand on Monday afternoon.
Natalie Akoorie is the Open Justice deputy editor, based in Waikato and covering crime and justice nationally. Natalie first joined the Herald in 2011 and has been a journalist in New Zealand and overseas for 27 years, recently covering health, social issues, local government, and the regions.
