New Zealand Defamation Laws: Civil & Defences

Defamation in New Zealand is a civil wrong, not a crime. It is governed mainly by the Defamation Act 1992, which sets out a single cause of action for defamation along with the defences and remedies. Criminal defamation was abolished when that Act came into force in 1993.

Is defamation a crime in New Zealand?

No. Defamation in New Zealand is a civil matter only. The Defamation Act 1992, which came into force on 1 February 1993, abolished the former offence of criminal libel, so a person who defames another cannot be prosecuted and instead may be sued for civil remedies. The Act is the main source of New Zealand defamation law, supplemented by a substantial body of case law from the courts. Freedom of expression is affirmed by section 14 of the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990, and courts develop defamation law consistently with that right. Because there is no criminal offence, every defamation dispute proceeds as a civil claim in which the plaintiff seeks damages, a declaration, or a recommendation that a correction be published.

What counts as defamation under the Defamation Act 1992?

The Defamation Act 1992 treats libel and slander as a single cause of action and removes the old technical distinctions between them. A statement is defamatory if it tends to lower a person in the estimation of ordinary, reasonable members of the community, or to expose them to hatred, contempt or ridicule. To bring a claim, a plaintiff must show that the statement was published to a third party, that it identifies or refers to the plaintiff, and that it bears a defamatory meaning. Section 4 of the Act confirms that defamation is actionable without proof of special damage, so an individual plaintiff does not need to prove financial loss. A statement can be defamatory by its ordinary meaning or by innuendo, where additional facts known to readers give otherwise innocent words a defamatory sense.

What defences are available?

The Defamation Act 1992 sets out the main defences, and the defendant bears the burden of establishing them.

The defence formerly called justification is now called truth, and the defence formerly called fair comment is now called honest opinion. For honest opinion, the defendant who is the author must show the opinion was genuinely held.

Watch out: Qualified privilege can be lost. Under the Act, the defence is defeated where the plaintiff proves that the defendant was predominantly motivated by ill will or otherwise took improper advantage of the occasion of publication.

What remedies and damages can a court order?

A successful plaintiff may be awarded damages to compensate for harm to reputation and injury to feelings. Beyond compensatory damages, the Act provides for a declaration under section 24 that the defendant is liable in defamation, which allows a plaintiff to clear their name without necessarily seeking large damages, and for a recommendation under section 26 that the defendant publish a correction or apology. A defendant who fails to follow a recommended correction can face cost consequences. Punitive damages are available under section 28 only where the defendant has acted in flagrant disregard of the plaintiff's rights, setting a high bar. In assessing damages, courts take into account in mitigation any correction, retraction or apology already published. Injunctions to restrain publication may also be sought, though courts are cautious about restraining speech in advance.

How does the law treat companies?

Watch out: Companies face a higher hurdle than individuals. Section 6 of the Defamation Act 1992 provides that a body corporate may bring defamation proceedings only if it alleges and proves that the publication has caused, or is likely to cause, pecuniary loss to it. An individual plaintiff, by contrast, does not have to prove financial loss because section 4 makes defamation actionable without special damage. This means a business that wants to sue must point to actual or likely financial harm, such as lost contracts or custom, rather than relying on damage to reputation alone. Both individuals and companies must still establish the basic elements of the claim, namely a defamatory statement, reference to the plaintiff, and publication to a third party.

How is online defamation handled in New Zealand?

Defamation law applies to online statements such as social media posts, blogs, reviews and forum comments in the same way it applies to print and broadcast. A person who publishes or repeats a defamatory statement online can be liable, and each substantial republication can found a claim. Internet intermediaries such as hosts or platforms may be able to rely on an innocent dissemination type defence where they did not know and had no reason to know that they were handling defamatory material, although that protection can be affected once they are notified. New Zealand also has the Harmful Digital Communications Act 2015, a separate regime that can address seriously harmful online posts through takedown processes, which operates alongside, and does not replace, the civil law of defamation. For how defamation fits with New Zealand's wider rules on privacy, recording, and online harm, see our New Zealand law guide.

How do you sue for defamation in New Zealand?

A defamation claim is a civil proceeding, generally filed in the High Court, where the plaintiff sets out the words complained of, the meaning alleged, and the fact of publication. The defendant then files a statement of defence and may plead truth, honest opinion or privilege. The Act encourages corrections and apologies, and a plaintiff may seek a declaration or a recommendation for a correction rather than only damages. A claim must generally be brought within two years of the date the statement was published, so prompt action is important. Because defamation litigation can be costly and New Zealand has no general anti-SLAPP statute, parties often consider the expense and the available remedies carefully before starting proceedings.