Batchelor – the Stop Co-Governance campaigner who was adamant he had been wronged by TVNZ in an August 2023 news report that essentially labelled him as racist – revealed under cross-examination during the defamation hearing last December that his case was being funded by Grenon.
Grenon, who decided to support Batchelor’s case soon after seeing the TVNZ story in 2023, became a director and major shareholder of NZME, owner of the NZ Herald and Newstalk ZB, in 2025. He now holds more than 19.90% of the company.
TVNZ and academic Sanjana Hattotuwa successfully defended the defamation claim and sought costs against the two men.
In his decision today, Clark has labelled Batchelor’s failure to disclose Grenon’s involvement as a funder of his defamation case as not merely a “procedural omission”.
“The non-disclosure deprived the court and the defendants of the opportunity to assess at an early stage whether the arrangement raised issues of abuse of process, impermissible assignment, a stay, security for costs, and non-party costs.
“In these circumstances, I find the deliberate non-disclosure amounts to an abuse of the court’s process.”
The judge found that Grenon had instigated the proceedings – by suggesting them in an initial phone call to Batchelor – and had undertaken his own due diligence. “Mr Grenon may not have been a party in name, but it is clear from the evidence [that] his shadow loomed large over the proceedings.”
Batchelor and Grenon were ordered to jointly pay costs to TVNZ on a 50% uplifted basis, for a total sum of $125,818.65.
They were also ordered to jointly pay costs to Hattotuwa, a former Disinformation Project researcher who was interviewed for the TVNZ story, on a 50% uplifted basis, for a total sum of $107,137.
They will also have to pay some further costs after additional submissions.
Judge Clark was critical of Batchelor’s conduct throughout the case, finding that he:
Failed to meet his discovery obligations;Failed to admit obvious facts and pursued arguments that lacked merit;Refused to answer relevant questions;Deliberately failed to disclose Grenon’s role as a litigation funder.
The judge described Batchelor’s behaviour as “unacceptable”.
“It does, however, need to be seen in context. Rightly or wrongly, he felt aggrieved by what was said about him. What was said was broadcast on national television.
“He was exposed then to a very wide audience. He was entitled to consider his options, which he did.
“As I have determined, his motivation to rectify the perceived wrong is accepted. However, in making the decision to issue and then proceed with his claim, he needed to follow the rules. He failed to do this.
“He failed because he was not prepared to allow a narrative that what was said about him may have been justified. Instead, he was only prepared to pursue his own narrative, to the point that anything which put that narrative at risk was either ignored or avoided.”
He said of Grenon: “Mr Grenon’s own evidence is that he supported Mr Batchelor’s claim because doing so was consistent with his own strongly held views on free speech in an open democracy and to ensure access to justice occurs, as well as to ensure judicial scrutiny of unfair accusations is undertaken.
“I consider Mr Grenon’s ability to fund litigation in this context is a clear benefit to him.”
The judge said the benefit of funding the litigation was not limited to a financial one.
“In my view, the primary benefit Mr Grenon derived from the proceeding was his ability to fund litigation which he considered supported his strongly held views on issues of freedom of speech and bringing an unfair characterisation of Mr Batchelor before the court for scrutiny.”
He said that, based on Batchelor’s evidence, “I find Mr Batchelor and Mr Grenon had reached an agreement [that] Mr Grenon’s funding of the proceeding would remain confidential”.
The judge also took aim at Grenon’s lawyer’s attempt to suppress “all aspects of the costs hearing” – later amended to a request for suppression of Grenon’s involvement in the proceeding.
“The court was left with the clear impression the suppression application was driven less by any proper basis for suppression and more by Mr Grenon’s wish to avoid public scrutiny of his role in the proceeding.
“However, once Mr Grenon chose to fund the litigation, he assumed several significant risks: that Mr Batchelor might lose, that adverse costs might follow, and that Mr Grenon’s involvement might be revealed. Non-party funders cannot expect to participate in litigation without, at a minimum, disclosing their interest. Whether that role should be publicly aired is then a matter for the court.”
Despite the criticisms, Clark declined to order indemnity costs – essentially the full and actual costs incurred (instead of costs on a scale basis).
He acknowledged submissions from defence lawyers that Batchelor’s conduct was among the worst they had seen, but said the threshold for indemnity costs remained very high.
The judge said Batchelor’s behaviour was “unacceptable” but “not exceptional”, concluding that a 50% uplift on ordinary costs was the appropriate sanction.
TVNZ said today, “The quantum of costs awarded is a matter for the court. However, we reiterate our position on the determination: this was an unequivocal result in TVNZ’s favour, and we are pleased with the outcome.”
Grenon and NZME have been approached for comment.
Grenon’s lawyer, Chris Patterson, said he had not yet had the opportunity to discuss the matter with his client and could not comment further at this stage.
Editor-at-Large Shayne Currie is one of New Zealand’s most experienced senior journalists and media leaders. He has held executive and senior editorial roles at NZME, including Managing Editor, NZ Herald Editor and Herald on Sunday Editor and has a small shareholding in NZME.