How SLAPP‑type actions are brought
As in other jurisdictions, defamation is the primary weapon for SLAPPs. Other causes of action – such as copyright – can sometimes be used in similar ways, but in New Zealand the main pressure point remains defamation. The focus on defamation is even more pronounced because of New Zealand’s relatively plaintiff‑friendly framework. New Zealand defamation law still presumes damage, retains jury trial in the High Court, and offers only limited tools for early disposal. Although defendants can apply to strike out abusive claims or seek summary judgment, courts are cautious about granting these at an early stage of proceedings and unsuccessful applications carry cost risks, so these tools are used sparingly.
For journalists, this combination matters. The basic elements of a defamation claim are comparatively easy to plead, and you may not get an early hearing that tests whether the case is worth the cost and pressure of full litigation.
Procedural tools and tactics
On top of the core claim, SLAPP‑type behaviour often relies on specific procedural levers.
Pre commencement discovery
Orders under r 8.20 of the High Court Rules can be used to force disclosure of documents and communications before a full claim is even filed. In practice, this can be aimed at unmasking confidential sources or mapping out a newsroom’s internal decision‑making in a way that chills further reporting.
Meaning and preliminary issues
Plaintiffs may push for early hearings on what the allegedly defamatory words mean, or on other preliminary legal issues, front‑loading cost and delay for the defendant. These hearings can be expensive and time‑consuming, even when the defendant ultimately succeeds.
Costs pressure
New Zealand’s costs regime, where the losing party usually pays a share of the winner’s costs and indemnity costs are sometimes available, can be used to intimidate. Combined with this system’s vulnerability to libel tourism, in cases involving plaintiffs based overseas, even if a defendant “wins”, they may still be left with a substantial legal bill that is partly recoverable, or not recoverable at all.
Interim injunctions and suppression orders
Plaintiffs may seek urgent orders to prevent publication, or to restrict reporting on the dispute itself. Unlike in some other jurisdictions, New Zealand does not have a clear statutory threshold that makes it harder to obtain these kinds of restraints in public‑interest cases. Even with the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act’s protection of free expression, interim restraints can still be granted on relatively limited evidence. Once granted, these orders can linger for years without a final hearing, effectively silencing coverage while the case remains bogged down in protracted litigation.