Apology Ruled Not Claim Settlement

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31500, 14 October 1967, Page 44

Apology Ruled Not Claim Settlement

(Now Inland Prut AuaciMon)

WELLINGTON, October 13.

There was no valid and binding settlement of a claim by a former Minister of Defence, Dean Jack Eyre, for $130,000 damages for alleged defamation because of an apology and retraction which had been published, Mr Justice Tompkins held in a judgment delivered today in the Supreme Court Hie defendants, Wilson and Horton, Ltd, publishers of the “New Zealand Herald* the first defendant and the New Zealand Press Association, Ltd, the second defendant, are allowed 21 days from today to file statements of defence.

Mr Eyre is claiming $50,000 damages against the first defendant and $BO,OOO jointly against the first and second defendants. The defendants had Sled a motion to determine before the case went to trial whether the apology constituted a binding settlement of the claim. Mr J. H. Dunn, with him Mr A. R. Hill, appeared for Mr Eyre, Mr M. E Casey fat the first defendant, and Mr H. Taylor for the second defendant. His Honour said that on November 23 last, the plaintiff spoke at a political meeting at Devonport. In the course of it he made remarks about the bombing of North Vietnam and a report of it first appeared in the “Herald" next morning under the heading "Basinful of Bombs Best” Sent Overseas The report was circulated by the Press Association throughtout New Zealand and overseas. “The plaintiff considered that the report was defamatory of him and was inaccurate, incomplete, and misleading, particularly in regard to its failure to refer to the plaintiff’s remarks about bombing North Vietnam as being “on military targets" which the plaintiff claimed to have said at the time of or immediately after he referred tn bombing North Vietnam. “The plaintiff claimed that the report was also defame-

tory in other respects. The report evoked hostile criticism of him both in New Zeeland and in many other countries. His Honour said that on a number of occasions in the next few days the plaintiff telephoned Mr 0. S. Hintz, editor of the “Herald,” seeking a retraction of the report and an apology. Mr Hints refused although he did, on Norember 29, publish, together with a statement very critical of the plaintiff made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr Kirk) and a statement by the plaintiff replying thereto, a qualification of the original report Not Satisfied The plaintiff was not satisfied with the statement and instructed Mr D. S. Beattie, Q.C., to act for him in issuing a writ against the “Herald" claiming damages for defamation. Mr Beattie advised the plaintiff be thought he should try to get an immediate retraction and apology published and to have it circulated by the Press Association in New Zealand and overseas to try to stop the continuing damage the plaintiff was suffering through the adverse reaction to the original report Mr Beattie, the plaintiff and his wife saw Mr F. W. Hardingham, deputy editor of the “Herald,” in his office. Mr Beattie told him that unless an apology were published a writ would bo issued immediately. Mr Hardingham replied that if the “Herald” was wrong ft Was a matter of policy, indeed of Integrity, to

acknowledge the mistake and . publish a correction. He added that even if he considered there was a reasonable doubt about the correctness of the report It would be resolved in the plaintiff’s favour. Draft Shown Mr Beattie was later shown a draft of a written retraction and apology with the offer to publish it prominently next day. « According to the evidence of Mr Hintz, Mr Beattie expressed complete satisfaction with the terms of the apology and then said: "That settles the matter.” "Mr Hintz said further that Mr Beattie said he had been given full authority by the plaintiff and that there was no real need for him to check acceptance of the statement with Mr Eyre,” his Honour said. "Mr Beattie in his evidence disagreed with this evidence. He said that he had never mentioned the word ‘settlement’ in any form. "He denied also that he told Mr Hintz there was no need to refer the matter to Mr .Eyre. “If Mr Beattie did use the words which Mr Hintz and Mr Hardingham say he did, then I think he must have been referring to settling the matter of the apology, not to a settlement of the whole case,” said his Honour. “No Reference” "On the whole, I think I must accept the evidence of Mr Beattie and he did not refer to settlement of the claim, either in his conversation with Mr Hintz in which Ke approved the. form of apology, or in his later conversation with Mr Hardingham in which the form of the apology, with the addition at the plaintiff’s request of certain words to it, was Anally agreed upon. “I think therefore that there was no accord in the sense of any agreement between the parties to accept the apology in. full settlement of the plaintiff's claim," his Honour said.