03/02/2020 Slater v Blomfield [2014] NZHC 2221; [2014] 3 NZLR 835 (12 September 2014) that he is a pathological liar, that he launders money, and that he is part of a network of crooks. Some of the exchanges between the alleged informants and Mr Slater show a gleeful attitude towards his shaming Mr Blomfield. In one blog post Mr Slater referred to the portable hard-drive as “just over 1 Tb of juicy dirt”. In the context of such extremely perjorative assertions, whether the pleaded honest opinion was genuine is likely to be very much an issue. [119] Thus, because of the extreme nature of the allegations, the defences of truth and honest opinion that are raised, and the s 39 notice alleging a plan to attack Mr Blomfield by four named persons who are alleged to be sources, there is a public interest in the disclosure of the identity of those sources to enable the defences to be properly evaluated at trial. [120] It is now necessary to consider the matters to be weighed against that public interest. Likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informants or any other person [121] This factor set out at s 68(2)(a) of the Evidence Act directs the Court to consider any likely adverse effect of the disclosure on the informants. 60 Broadcasting Corporation of New Zealand v Alex Harvey Industries Ltd, above n 5, at 171. [122] Mr Slater has in his affidavits and writings made it clear that he regards Mr Blomfield as a man capable of physical violence. Mr Spring in his affidavit claims that he has received threats from Mr Blomfield on numerous occasions. However, the only detail he gives is that he had been sent text messages to run him out of New Zealand and advises that if he did not stop pursuing him for money he would have a public relations nightmare on his hands. He claims that a close relative of Mr Blomfield is a criminal convicted of assaults, who has also threatened him. Mr Slater suggests that the respondent may seek to “bully and intimidate” his sources if they are disclosed. [123] However, there is no evidence that Mr Blomfield has endeavoured to bully and intimidate Mr Spring and the others who have already been disclosed as sources. One of the exhibits produced by Mr Blomfield is a vigorous exchange of emails between him and Mr Spring where Mr Spring appears to be sending Mr Blomfield aggressive and abusive texts. By and large Mr Blomfield takes a relatively defensive position. [124] Mr Blomfield has no convictions for violent offending. I do not accept Mr Slater’s suggestion that he is a person to be feared. Mr Slater referred to an incident and a court case, but Mr Blomfield was discharged. There is nothing to suggest he would resort to intimidatory tactics, and I put that to one side as an adverse effect. [125] There are also none of the adverse effects that can apply to informants when they are genuine whistleblowers who place at risk their employment, revenue, promotion, friendship or family goodwill in providing the information. There is no legitimate sensitivity to the information. On the evidence adduced, the alleged sources are persons who had a business association with Mr Blomfield which has long since terminated, and who are angry with him. There is no question about them losing or being damaged in their jobs or otherwise suffering economic or reputation consequences. There are no delicate family relationships or friendships at stake. Given that the alleged sources seem unlikely to have any ongoing relationship with Mr Blomfield, or with any other party that might react adversely to any news that they were sources, if they were sources, it is not possible to discern any likely adverse effects. www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2014/2221.html 26/30