03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) Solicitors/Counsel: J Miles QC, Auckland. MA Karam, Auckland. Copy to: C Slater, Auckland. SLATER v BLOMFIELD [2014] NZHC 2221 [12 September 2014] Table of Contents Para No Introduction [1] The defamation claim [5] Section 68(1) of the Evidence Act 2006 [17] Approach to s 68(1) [33] The relevant time [36] Whether there was a promise [39] Whether Whale Oil was a news medium Blog sites [42] Can a blogger be a news medium? [43] Is Whale Oil a news medium? [55] Was Mr Slater receiving information in the normal course of his work? The notion of normal course of work [66] Was Mr Slater receiving information in the normal course of his work? [75] Disclosure of sources has taken place [85] Conclusion on s 68(1) [93] Rule 8.46 [95] Application for order that s 68(1) not apply [104] The issues to be determined in the proceeding [109] The public interest in the disclosure of evidence of the identity of the informants [112] Likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informants or any other person [121] The public interest in the communication of facts and opinion to the public by the news media and its ability to access sources of facts [128] Weighing the factors [136] Summary of conclusions [140] Result [152] Costs [155] www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 2/30