[Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] New Zealand Law Commission

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Download] [Help]

Endnotes

^[1] Lange v Atkinson [1997] NZLR 22.

^[2] Lange v Atkinson [1998] 3 NZLR 424.

^[3] Pearson J in Webb v Times Publishing Co Ltd [1960] 2 QB 535, 569.

^[4] Brennan J in Stephens v West Australian Newspapers Ltd (1994) 182 CLR 211, 244.

^[5] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 467_468 per Richardson P, Henry, Keith Blanchard JJ.

^[6] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 469_470.

^[7] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 477.

^[8] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 473.

^[9] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 474_475.

^[10] (1971) US 295; discussed in Frederick Schauer "Uncoupling Free Speech" (1992) 92 Colum L Rev 1321, 1326 ff.

^[11] (1863) 3 B & S 769, 777; 122 ER 288, 291.

^[12] This matter is discussed at p 462 of the Court of Appeal's judgment and at p 3, paras 8-13 of the NZLC Preliminary Paper 33 Defaming Politicians: A Response to Lange v Atkinson (1998); it was subsequently to be discussed by the Privy Council at [2000] 1 NZLR 257, 262.

^[13] Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation (1997) 189 CLR 520, 572.

^[14] Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd [1998] 3 WLR 862.

^[15] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 906_907.

^[16] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 893.

^[17] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 910.

^[18] [1999] 3 WLR 1010.

^[19] Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, above n 18, 1023_1024.

^[20] Defaming Politicians: A Response to Lange v Atkinson above n 12, vi.

^[21] Lange v Atkinson [2000] 1 NZLR 257.

^[22] Lange v Atkinson, above n 21, 262.

^[23] Lange v Atkinson, above n 21, 264.

^[24] Unreported see A52/7. Because the judgment is as yet unreported references to the judgment will be to paragraph numbers.

^[25] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 36.

^[26] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 38.

^[27] Set out in full in para 4 of this report.

^[28] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 39.

^[29] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 42.

^[30] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 47.

^[31] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 48.

^[32] Recommendations on the Law of Defamation; Report of the Committee on Defamation (1977), Government Printer, Wellington. 153, cls 15(1) and (2) of the draft Bill forming part of that report.

^[33] Report of the Committee on Defamation, above n 31, paras 195_199.

^[34] [1975] AC 135, 149_150.

^[35] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, 468_469.

^[36] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 39.

^[37] Unreported see A52/7, above n 23, para 48 set out in extenso in para 17 of this report.

^[38] There is a conceptual distinction between recklessness which involves a state of mind, an indifference, and negligence, which connotes an objectively measured breach of a duty of care. But there are many examples of the term recklessness as used in statutes being construed more loosely than this to mean something like gross negligence, and presumably it is this looser meaning that the Court had in mind in the penultimate sentence of para 48 of its judgment quoted in para 17 of this report.

^[39] [1986] AC 299_317.

^[40] (1997) 189 CLR 520, 572_573.

^[41] Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, above n 18, 1032; consider also the passage from Lord Nicholls' judgment quoted in para 14 above.

^[42] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, para 55.

^[43] Woodhouse P, 168; Richardson J, 174; McMullin J, 178.

^[44] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, para 56.

^[45] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, para 58.

^[46] Evidence (1999) NZLC R 55 Vol 2, 172.

^[47] From the passage by Lord Steyn in Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd quoted para 20 above.

^[48] Lange v Atkinson, above n 2, para 59.

^[49] Much the same conclusion (though expressed in less sedate terms) is reached by Bill Atkin and Steve Price [2000] NZLJ 236.

^[50] Alfred Lord Tennyson (1833) "You asked me, why", iii.

^[51] It should be noted that because of the unusual sequence of events the Law Commission has not invited submissions on this proposal, but the ground has by now been so well ploughed over and the issue is now so narrow that there seems little point in doing so.

^[52] Reynolds v Times Newspapers Ltd, above n 14, 1024.

^[53] [2000] 1 NZLR 257, 261.

^[54] There is authority for the proposition that although a website is necessarily accessible to the world at large, yet given the vast number of domain names (about 15 million) and the absence of comprehensive directories, this does not preclude a court from enquiring for conflict of laws purposes as to the targeted audience. See Telco Communications v An Apple a Day (1997) 977 F Supp 404; Blumenthal v Drudge and AOL (1998) 992 F Supp 44, discussed by Uta Kohl Defamation on the Internet _ A Duty Free Zone After All? (2000) 22 Sydney LR 186. This is however a different question from whether there is general publication (in the sense in which that term is used in this report and the cases it refers to) of matters published on a website.