Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd
 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. (April 2018) |
| Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Court | Privy Council |
| Full case name | Richard William Prebble Appellant v Television New Zealand Limited Respondents |
| Decided | 27 June 1994 |
| Citation(s) | [1994] 3 NZLR 1 |
| Transcript(s) | Privy Council ruling |
| Court membership | |
| Judge(s) sitting | LORD KEITH OF KINKEL, Lord Goff of Chieveley, LORD BROWNE-WILKINSON, Lord Mustill, Lord Nolan |
| Keywords | |
| negligence | |
Richard Prebble v Television New Zealand Ltd [1994] 3 NZLR 1 is a cited case in New Zealand regarding claims in defamation and the defence of parliamentary privilege.[1]
Background
TVNZ's news programme "Frontline" aired a show highly critical of the fourth Labour government and minister Richard Prebble's handling of state asset sales.
Prebble found this programme to be defamatory to him, and he sued TVNZ for defamation.
As part of TVNZ's defence, they tried to include statements made in Parliament by Prebble as evidence against his claim.
In response, Prebble applied to the courts that under Article 9 of the Bill of Rights 1688, any statements made in Parliament cannot be used in any court.
Held
The Privy Council ruled that that which had been said in Parliament was privileged, and could not be used by TVNZ as a defence against defamation allegations.
References
- ^ McLay, Geoff (2010). Butterworths Student Companion Torts (6th ed.). LexisNexis. ISBN 9781877511400.