03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) [8] The majority of the articles that are the subject of the claim contain extracts of emails to which Mr Blomfield is allegedly a party. They refer to electronic files which Mr Blomfield claims were sourced from his hard-drive and potentially other sources including a filing cabinet of Mr Blomfield. [9] Mr Slater admitted in his statement of defence that he had in his possession copies of emails, databases and electronic files relating to the affairs of Mr Blomfield. He stated that on or about February 2012 he was provided with a hard-drive that included approximately one terabyte of computer files previously owned by Mr Blomfield. [10] Following the publication of the articles on the Whale Oil website, Mr Blomfield filed proceedings in the Manukau District Court in October 2012 in which he claimed that the statements and the articles were defamatory. He sought an order that the material relating to him be removed from the Whale Oil website as well as compensatory and punitive damages. When the proceedings were commenced there was no statement of claim required under the District Court Rules 2009. It was only when interlocutory orders were sought and the file was referred to a Judge that a statement of claim and statement of defence were filed in the traditional manner. [11] In his statement of defence, Mr Slater admitted that he published the articles that contained the words alleged to be defamatory. He denied that the words conveyed or were capable of conveying the alleged defamatory meanings. He raised the affirmative defences of truth and honest opinion in respect of each of the statements in each of the articles published. [12] Mr Blomfield filed applications for orders requiring discovery and the answering of interrogatories. The application for discovery sought amongst other things “all email correspondence between” the appellant and several persons, including persons allegedly involved in the supply of material: Mr Powell, Mr Spring, Ms Easterbrook and Mr Price. This was accompanied by a notice to answer interrogatories, which included a question about the source of the alleged defamatory material published on Whale Oil: Who supplied the [appellant] with the hard drive and other information referred to on the Whale Oil website? [13] Nothing very much happened on the file between November 2012 and 26 August 2013, at which point Mr Blomfield made an interlocutory application for orders that Mr Slater answer his interrogatories and provide discovery. Mr Slater refused to comply with the discovery request and the interrogatory on the basis that the information was privileged under s 68 of the Evidence Act. [14] Mr Slater’s notice of opposition to these applications relied on s 68(1) which provides journalists with a cloak of non-compellability. He asserted that he was a “journalist” and that to require him to answer the interrogatory or provide discovery would be to require him to disclose the identity of his “informants” to whom he had promised non-disclosure. He also relied on r 8.46 of the High Court Rules which provides that no interrogatories should be allowed unless necessary in the interests of justice. [15] The applications were heard by Judge Blackie on 2 September 2013. He held that s 68(1) did not provide a basis for Mr Slater to refuse to answer the interrogatories or give discovery. He held:3 Whaleoil is a blog site. It is not a news medium within the definition of s 68(5) of the Evidence Act. It is not a means for the dissemination to the public or a section of the public of news and observation on news. [16] The Judge also considered whether r 8.46 of the High Court Rules provided a basis on which Mr Slater could object to answer the interrogatories as to his sources. He held:4 www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 4/30