{"id":49151,"date":"2025-09-29T01:01:11","date_gmt":"2025-09-29T01:01:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/49151\/"},"modified":"2025-09-29T01:01:11","modified_gmt":"2025-09-29T01:01:11","slug":"mother-sues-school-principal-for-defamation-over-emails-to-family-court-appointed-lawyer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/49151\/","title":{"rendered":"Mother sues school principal for defamation over emails to Family Court-appointed lawyer"},"content":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-family:'Sohne',Arial,Sans-serif;display: flex;align-items: center;font-size: 14px;\" class=\"story-paragraph nzherald-paragraph\">By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of <a style=\"background: none !important;\" href=\"https:\/\/www.nzherald.co.nz\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\"><img decoding=\"async\" width=\"122px\" height=\"30px\" style=\"display: flex;background: none;\" alt=\"NZ Herald\" src=\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/nzherald-117bcaab72f04075ca4e3d3410ff591e0b001b26e2ec22af4bb2efaa4ad5ed42.png\"\/><\/a><\/p>\n<p><img decoding=\"async\" loading=\"lazy\" src=\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/4MONI49_154010797_m_jpg\" width=\"1050\" height=\"700\" alt=\"A schoolgirl with yellow backpack going to school outside.\"\/><\/p>\n<p class=\"photo-captioned__information\">\nThe defamation case arose from incidents during pick-up at the school gate.<br \/>\nPhoto: 123rf\n<\/p>\n<p>A school principal felt that a girl&#8217;s father was a loving and &#8220;exemplary&#8221; parent, but that the mother was denying him his custody rights.<\/p>\n<p>She said as much in an email to a lawyer appointed to look after the girl&#8217;s interests in a Family Court dispute, after the father was prevented from picking up the girl at the school gate.<\/p>\n<p>The mother then sued the principal for defamation.<\/p>\n<p>The defamation case has now been before the courts for two years and has led to thousands of dollars in costs.<\/p>\n<p>It is also headed towards the Court of Appeal despite a judge&#8217;s view that it is &#8220;meritless litigation&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>High Court Justice Dale La Hood says the defamation action &#8220;should be regarded as an abuse of process and a collateral attack on the Family Court proceedings&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>The names of the parents and the school principal have been anonymised in Justice La Hood&#8217;s judgments about the case, to protect the identity of the child.<\/p>\n<p>The name of the school is also not mentioned.<\/p>\n<p>Justice La Hood has given the fictitious name Sarah Smith to the mother. He called the principal Jennifer Black.<\/p>\n<p>Mother says principal made &#8216;false statements&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>Smith claimed the principal defamed her by making &#8220;false statements&#8221; about her to the police and a lawyer appointed to represent her daughter in the Family Court.<\/p>\n<p>Her case failed at the first hurdle, in the District Court, where it was described as &#8220;untenable and an abuse of process&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>But the mother persisted, appealing against the District Court decision to the High Court, which also decided against her and imposed more than $25,000 of costs.<\/p>\n<p>The mother has now applied to take appeals against the High Court decision and the costs order to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n<p>The dispute began when the girl&#8217;s father came to the school on 24 February, 2022, to collect his daughter for the weekend in line with a parenting order.<\/p>\n<p>While the father waited at the gate, the principal and two school staff saw the child running away from the school with a woman they did not know.<\/p>\n<p>The principal called the police saying, &#8220;A woman dragged [the child] and ran away from the school.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>The girl was found later at her mother&#8217;s home. Smith alleged that the phone call to police had defamed her.<\/p>\n<p>She later claimed that emails the principal sent to the girl&#8217;s lawyer were also defamatory.<\/p>\n<p>One of the emails, on 28 February, 2022, recounted the incident reported to police four days earlier.<\/p>\n<p>On 20 May, 2022, the lawyer asked the principal to make observations about the girl&#8217;s father and his dealings with the school.<\/p>\n<p>&#8216;An exemplary parent&#8217;<\/p>\n<p>The principal emailed back that the father had been an &#8220;exemplary parent to work with&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;He is approachable, engaged and clearly shows a deep love and concern for his daughter,&#8221; the principal said.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;We see him to be a good and supportive parent who always puts his daughter&#8217;s welfare first.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>She also reported the girl had been hesitant to leave with her father on days when he had care of her but that &#8220;she always comes back happy&#8221; and &#8220;Dad&#8217;s patience and support is admirable&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>On September 15, 2022, Black emailed the lawyer again, saying that there had been a &#8220;resurgence of incidents&#8221; with the mother.<\/p>\n<p>She said Smith had made allegations against other girls in the class, and her daughter had again gone missing after school.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;I am of the strong opinion [the child] was told to go home without meeting her dad,&#8221; the principal wrote.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;It is very sad that [the father] continues to be denied his parental rights by the mum.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Proceedings struck out<\/p>\n<p>Smith claimed that the emails defamed her, but the District Court struck out her proceedings.<\/p>\n<p>The District Court judge said the emails referred to an &#8220;unknown woman&#8221; taking the child and comments about the father could not be defamatory about the mother.<\/p>\n<p>The defamation proceedings were regarded as &#8220;both vexatious and an abuse of process&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>Justice La Hood in the High Court said that some of the comments were capable of lowering Smith&#8217;s reputation, but that Black was protected by defences of absolute or qualified privilege.<\/p>\n<p>These defences protect someone making a statement from liability in a defamation case.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;The [defamation] proceedings are abusive because, as a matter of absolute privilege, Ms Black should not be subject to harassment through defamation proceedings for providing evidence to the Family Court [through the lawyer] about the care arrangements for a child at her school,&#8221; Justice La Hood said.<\/p>\n<p>He said that there was no basis to infer that Black was motivated by ill will or sought to obtain an improper advantage in her comments about Smith.<\/p>\n<p>&#8220;Accordingly, I consider the defence of qualified privilege is unanswerable.&#8221;<\/p>\n<p>Justice La Hood dismissed Smith&#8217;s appeal but court documents reveal that the mother still intends to take the matter further, to the Court of Appeal.<\/p>\n<p>Continues to incur costs<\/p>\n<p>Black has told the High Court she continues to incur costs through Smith&#8217;s &#8220;frivolous litigation&#8221;.<\/p>\n<p>In relation to Smith&#8217;s concern about her costs, Black suggested that Smith should consider withdrawing the proceedings instead of filing more.<\/p>\n<p>Smith, for her part, argues that her application for leave for another appeal has &#8220;substantial merit&#8221; as her defamation claim should not have been struck out.<\/p>\n<p>This story was first published on the <a href=\"https:\/\/www.nzherald.co.nz\/nz\/mother-sues-school-principal-for-defamation-over-emails-to-family-court-appointed-lawyer\/DY6XXSIXVNFJHDBWN24LKPG6CM\/\" rel=\"nofollow noopener\" target=\"_blank\">The New Zealand Herald<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"By Ric Stevens, Open Justice reporter of The defamation case arose from incidents during pick-up at the school&hellip;\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":49152,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[48,47,42,43,49,46,44,45,40,38,41,39],"class_list":{"0":"post-49151","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","5":"has-post-thumbnail","7":"category-headlines","8":"tag-audio","9":"tag-current-affairs","10":"tag-headlines","11":"tag-news","12":"tag-podcasts","13":"tag-public-radio","14":"tag-radio-new-zealand","15":"tag-rnz","16":"tag-top-news","17":"tag-top-stories","18":"tag-topnews","19":"tag-topstories"},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49151","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=49151"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/49151\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/49152"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=49151"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=49151"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/nz\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=49151"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}