03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) [97] I do not think that the phrase “on a matter of public interest” adds a particular requirement to r 8.46 as it is a hangover from an earlier requirement of the common law that fair comment must be on a matter of public interest.41 It is an irrelevant relic from that earlier law. The authors of The Law of Torts in New Zealand comment that there is room for argument that the requirement for “public interest” has survived the Defamation Act 1992.42 However, they accept that it may be difficult now to argue to the contrary, and I take that view. [98] In 2004 there was also a further addition to the rule in that interrogatories could be permissible if “necessary in the interests of justice”. This change appears to be a response to the observations of the Court of Appeal in Lange v Atkinson.43 It was noted by the Court that the statement in Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v Alex Harvey Industries Ltd that the newspaper rule applies unless there are special circumstances warranting a departure from it, might require reconsideration because the basis for departure was “too narrow”. 44 It was observed also that the absoluteness of r 285, the predecessor to r 8.46, might require a re-assessment. The Australian High Court decision of John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco45 was referred to, where it was held that a departure from the rule was permissible when it was “necessary in the interests of justice”. 41 Awa v Independent News Auckland Ltd [1997] 3 NZLR 590 (CA) at 595. 42 Stephen Todd (ed) The Law of Torts in New Zealand (6th ed, Brookers, Wellington, 2013) at 16.8.05. 43 44 Lange v Atkinson [2000] NZCA 95; [2000] 3 NZLR 385 (CA). At [55]. 45 John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco [1988] HCA 54; (1988) 165 CLR 346. [99] If as I consider was the case, the Rules Committee in amending r 8.46 in 2004 was responding to the observations in Lange v Atkinson there was a possible confusion as the John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco decision related to the newspaper rule rather than the Australian equivalent to r 285. Be that as it may, the addition of the phrase “necessary in the interests of justice” was a substantive change, and the observations of the Australian High Court in John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco are relevant to its interpretation. [100] The phrase as used in r 8.46 has not been considered in New Zealand. In John Fairfax & Sons Ltd v Cojuangco the Court quoted Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v Alex Harvey Industries Ltd and other English and New Zealand authorities. These were not followed, and it was held that the media and journalists have no public interest immunity from being required to disclose their sources of information when such disclosure is necessary “in the interests of justice”.46 The Court held:47 The point is that there is a paramount interest in the administration of justice which requires that cases be tried by Courts on the relevant and admissible evidence. [101] The Court went on to hold that the Courts have acted according to the principle that disclosure of the source will not be required unless it is necessary in the interests of justice. The Court also held:48 The liability of the media and of journalists to disclose their sources of information in the interests of justice is itself a valuable sanction which will encourage the media to exercise with due responsibility its great www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 21/30