For those asking, yes, Todd Scott filed a Statement of Claim against me in the High Court today. He alleges that it was negligent for me to have sent NBR the column I did about Steven Joyce. Consequently, despite the column having been published in the NBR after being read and subedited by several NBR staff including editor Duncan Bridgeman, Todd says I should have to pay some or all NBR’s costs and any losses it suffers from Mr Joyce’s litigation. I understand these are now many tens of thousands of dollars.
This is a very novel legal move. If media owners are able to seek financial redress from reporters, journalists and other contributors for supplying material that might later be found to be capable of having a defamatory meaning, despite being subedited and published by the publication itself, it would have a chilling effect on journalism in New Zealand. No one in the NBR or any other newsroom would be safe from an angry owner who later came under legal and financial pressure.
It would also create a bit of a circular situation. For example, if Todd were successful in negligence against me, I would then surely be able to successfully sue Duncan Bridgeman to get my losses back because he would have been negligent towards me when he subedited and published the column. This would be bizarre and I will not be responding to Todd’s eccentric legal move. He can make his case to the High Court and bear the cost of doing so. I’ll show up if the judge wants.
Seeing I am posting on this topic, others have raised with me Todd’s indications he may reveal who my sources were for the column. This is a red herring. The litigation Mr Joyce has launched does not target any of the points in the column for which I relied on sources, such as the background to the recent National Party leadership election. According to Mr Joyce’s Statement of Claim, he was mainly concerned about comments I made about his relationship with Chorus and also the use of the word “blackmail”. I have apologised publicly on all the points raised in his Statement of Claim and settled his complaint against me. Todd doesn’t wish to do the same.
Finally, Todd is concerned about the apology I made to Mr Joyce, and says I had implored him not to make any apology. This is, at best, misleading. I was certainly not prepared to apologise for the large number of matters Mr Joyce originally complained about, and I have not done so. As discussed above, my apology related to the points raised in Mr Joyce’s Statement of Claim in order to resolve the matter to his and my satisfaction without clogging up the courts. I think this was the sensible thing to do under the circumstances. Todd and NBR were advised that I planned to take this course of action on 11 April and I know he was aware of it because he sent me an abusive text that day as a result. I then issued the apology twelve days later on 23 April.
[UPDATE: A review of my emails also reveals that I proposed to NBR on 6 March that we apologise in the NBR of 9 March for exactly the point Mr Joyce ended up suing on. Todd rejected this proposal. If he now faces six-figure legal bills, putting his business and the jobs of those he employs at risk, that is entirely the result of his own erratic and incompetent behaviour.]
For what it is worth, I think the subeditors at the NZ Herald, where I now write, would have asked me to edit the parts of the column Mr Joyce raised in his Statement of Claim and I would have agreed. I write hundreds of thousands of words a year and sometimes use language that benefits from good subediting. My apology to Mr Joyce for the matters raised in his Statement of Claim was sincere and I reiterate it here.
Matthew Hooton is a right wing columnist.
Matthew please expose Joyce as he has been such a shifty operator we all know don’t we all.
Don’t be afraid to speak up and don’t allow your self to be threatened by Joyce when he bullies and threatens you as he has others, as he deserves lots of criticisms for what he has done to ruin NZ.
Everything you touch turns to shit, Matthew. Do you think it might be you?
Hey who has hacked ‘The Standard’ today?
At 12 noon 23rd may 2018 it is down?
The Standard is a DIY thing and it goes down a lot. If LP is away which also happens a lot it can take some hours to fix.
As much as I disdain Matthew Hooton, this is a bullshit move from Todd Scott. If you’re responsible for editing anything going to print in your publication, and you fail in that task resulting in legal action against you, how is that the author’s fault? It’s like VTNZ issuing a WOF, then trying to prosecute the driver of the vehicle when they’re pulled over and fined for operating a dangerous vehicle. You issued the warrant. If you missed some critical aspect of the inspection, that’s your problem.
So yeah, though it grieves me immeasurably, I’m with Matthew on this.
It sounds – especially with the update-that the NBR doesn’t have a leg to stand on.
Instead of pay Todd Scott many tens of thousands of dollars then, you can maybe purchase a soul, Mr Hooton.
It’s just well connected people wasting the NZ Court’s time and tax payer’s money. Why is it always politicians on the right claiming deformation and trumped up damages?
Just another failed National MP.
sorry, not related to this article – i am working on a tricky crossword puzzle thing – what is the plural for fuckwit?
If I may make a few points…
1. As much as I might disagree with Matthew Hooton’s political views, I respect the manner in which he presents those views (at least, on Radio NZ’s panel).
2. I also respect the diligent, investigative, work he did on the Murray McCully Saudi sheep “deal” (read: bribery, in my honest opinion) in the NBR.
3. It is outrageous that Todd Scott is threatening to “reveal who [Matthew Hooton’s] sources were for the column”. This violates one of the most basic tenets of journalism and if he (Scott) pursues this course of action may find that his own staff will lose all trust in him. Scott’s threat to expose Matthew’s sources are unacceptable and irresponsible.
4. Matthew makes a valid point when he writes;
Bloggers are also vulnerable to legal action. If, say, I were to contribute a piece for the NZ Herald or Dominion Post; and it was published; and legal action resulted – I could face the same legal retribution that Matthew is experiencing.
“Chilling”? More like absolute-zero freezing on Pluto.
We may not agree with or like Matthew’s politics, but there’s an old adage in the Trade Union movement which is applicable here; an injury to one, is an injury to all.
+1
Oh, and by the way, Matthew doesn’t make it very clear, but Todd Scott is the managing editor of the National Business Review.
In effect, a media owner is suing one of his own contributors.
“Novel” indeed?!?!
Comments are closed.