Prebble v Television New Zealand [1994]
Share
Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1994] UKPC 4 involves a decision by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, originating from the Court of Appeal of New Zealand. The central issues revolve around defamation claims and the use of parliamentary privilege as a defence.
Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ)'s news programme Frontline broadcasted an episode criticising the Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand and the sale of state-owned assets, including Air New Zealand, during Richard Prebble's tenure as the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises. Prebble sued TVNZ for defamation, claiming that the program accused him of conspiring to sell state assets on unduly favourable terms to gain donations for the New Zealand Labour Party.
TVNZ denied the defamatory meanings alleged by Prebble and argued that some of the alleged defamatory meanings were true. The defence included claims that Prebble and other ministers misled the House of Representatives by suggesting the government did not intend to sell state assets and that the conspiracy to sell state assets was implemented by passing legislation.
Prebble sought to strike out parts of TVNZ's defence that involved statements and actions outside of Parliament, claiming that they infringed on parliamentary privilege established by the Bill of Rights 1688. The High Court of New Zealand allowed Prebble's application, but the Court of Appeal ordered a stay of Prebble's action unless and until privilege was waived by the House of Representatives.
The Privileges Committee of the House held that the House had no power to waive the privileges protected by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. Prebble appealed to the Privy Council against the stay order. TVNZ argued that privilege only applies when legal consequences are sought against the maker of the statement and that parliamentary privilege should not prevent a defendant from justifying a libel by challenging the plaintiff's statements in Parliament.
The Privy Council rejected TVNZ's arguments, upholding parliamentary privilege. It concluded that parties to litigation cannot question anything said or done in the House, and individuals cannot override the collective privilege of the House. The court allowed the use of Hansard to prove historical facts without suggesting improper motives or falsehoods. While acknowledging that exclusion of material due to privilege may make it challenging to determine issues fairly, a stay should only be granted in extreme circumstances.
The Privy Council allowed the appeal against the stay order, stating that Prebble was entitled to have his case heard, and TVNZ could present the majority of its justifications for the alleged libel without relying on statements made in Parliament.
Television New Zealand Ltd (TVNZ)'s news programme Frontline broadcasted an episode criticising the Fourth Labour Government of New Zealand and the sale of state-owned assets, including Air New Zealand, during Richard Prebble's tenure as the Minister of State-Owned Enterprises. Prebble sued TVNZ for defamation, claiming that the program accused him of conspiring to sell state assets on unduly favourable terms to gain donations for the New Zealand Labour Party.
TVNZ denied the defamatory meanings alleged by Prebble and argued that some of the alleged defamatory meanings were true. The defence included claims that Prebble and other ministers misled the House of Representatives by suggesting the government did not intend to sell state assets and that the conspiracy to sell state assets was implemented by passing legislation.
Prebble sought to strike out parts of TVNZ's defence that involved statements and actions outside of Parliament, claiming that they infringed on parliamentary privilege established by the Bill of Rights 1688. The High Court of New Zealand allowed Prebble's application, but the Court of Appeal ordered a stay of Prebble's action unless and until privilege was waived by the House of Representatives.
The Privileges Committee of the House held that the House had no power to waive the privileges protected by article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688. Prebble appealed to the Privy Council against the stay order. TVNZ argued that privilege only applies when legal consequences are sought against the maker of the statement and that parliamentary privilege should not prevent a defendant from justifying a libel by challenging the plaintiff's statements in Parliament.
The Privy Council rejected TVNZ's arguments, upholding parliamentary privilege. It concluded that parties to litigation cannot question anything said or done in the House, and individuals cannot override the collective privilege of the House. The court allowed the use of Hansard to prove historical facts without suggesting improper motives or falsehoods. While acknowledging that exclusion of material due to privilege may make it challenging to determine issues fairly, a stay should only be granted in extreme circumstances.
The Privy Council allowed the appeal against the stay order, stating that Prebble was entitled to have his case heard, and TVNZ could present the majority of its justifications for the alleged libel without relying on statements made in Parliament.
