Jeremy Wells with his Like Mike puppet of Mike Hosking. Photo \/ Supplied<\/p>\n
Now, a brief Like Mike segment from 2014 is playing out in a defamation and invasion-of-privacy case in the High Court at Auckland.<\/p>\n
More specifically, NZME, owner of Hauraki and publisher of the Herald, is trying to have the action struck out before it reaches a substantive hearing.<\/p>\n
This week, the High Court heard that on July 30, 2014, Wells focused his Like Mike commentary on a stoush that was unfolding on Waiheke Island between TV personality and former sports star Marc Ellis and a neighbour over Ellis\u2019 construction of a driveway.<\/p>\n
The Like Mike piece was quoted at various stages during Monday\u2019s proceedings, including the opening lines: \u201cIf there\u2019s one thing that annoys me more than even Green voters it\u2019s silly do-gooding neighbourly nosy parkers, in particular the ones that stop you doing things on your own property. <\/p>\n
\u201cMarc Ellis knows all about them \u2013 he\u2019s trying to build a driveway to his practical, unpretentious five-bedroom family bach on Waiheke and some neighbour is getting in the way. The council has granted consent so what\u2019s the problem?<\/p>\n
\u201cMy guess is that the complainant is either a lesbian or bi-curious, both of which spell danger. Most people who block progress on Waiheke Island are lesbians. You see, lesbians are often lesbian and by their very nature they complain. They\u2019re often jealous, they own dogs …\u201d<\/p>\n
Wells, impersonating Hosking, also said: \u201cOccasionally you\u2019ll get a good lesbian, one that plays sports. But in my experience, which is zero when it comes to lesbians because I\u2019ve never met one, they\u2019re potentially terrible neighbours.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Waiheke Island resident – named in news reports in 2014 as a neighbour in dispute with Ellis – took exception when she discovered a transcript of the Like Mike item on an independent and anonymous blog site more than nine years later, in October 2023.<\/p>\n
\u201cThat\u2019s the document that started everything,\u201d the woman\u2019s lawyer, Willy Akel, told the High Court this week.<\/p>\n
A major issue in the hearing was whether the woman\u2019s claim was filed too late.<\/p>\n
NZME said she discovered the website in October 2023 but did not commence proceedings until 2026, while Akel told the court that its continued availability on the blog site meant publication remained ongoing.<\/p>\n
The woman traced the transcript back to the Like Mike item on Hauraki. <\/p>\n
She is claiming defamation and a breach of privacy.<\/p>\n
But NZME is seeking to strike out the claims on multiple fronts, arguing they have little realistic prospect of success.<\/p>\n
Jeremy Wells’ Like Mike segment eventually spawned a video series and puppet.<\/p>\n
It says the woman was never named or identified; the Like Mike audio was no longer available after 2021; very few people had seen the piece on the Hauraki website; the limitation period for bringing a defamation claim had expired; the piece was not defamatory, and any harm would be less than minor. <\/p>\n
\u201cThe sarcasm is dripping,\u201d Russell McVeagh\u2019s Joe Edwards, representing NZME, said of the Like Mike piece. \u201cThat\u2019s the context in which it was made and which it should be taken.\u201d<\/p>\n
He emphasised Hauraki hosts\u2019 irreverent style – the broadcast was clearly satirical, he said, and intended to be humorous and not taken literally.<\/p>\n
NZME also said it had nothing to do with the blog site that had transcribed the segment, and it did not know who was behind it.<\/p>\n
Before Associate Judge Nick Malarao, NZME said it was also seeking security of costs if the case did proceed to a full hearing.<\/p>\n
Edwards estimated fees would be in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. He did not believe the woman had the means to pay in the event of a costs award.<\/p>\n
On behalf of NZME, he said the woman\u2019s actions were an abuse of process.<\/p>\n
Akel, however, was adamant his client had a case, citing – as an example of the identity argument – a NZ Herald news report that named her the day before the Like Mike segment was broadcast in 2014.<\/p>\n
NZME maintains that neither Wells nor anyone else at the company knew the woman\u2019s sexuality when the segment aired, a point central to its argument that the privacy claim cannot succeed.<\/p>\n
Akel said he wanted the opportunity to cross-examine Wells at a trial over his statements in a sworn interrogatory that he had been unaware of the woman\u2019s sexuality when he created the piece.<\/p>\n
Akel: \u201cThe main arguments of the defendants appear to be that because Mr Wells didn\u2019t know he was breaching privacy, he couldn\u2019t be liable. As we said in our written submission, that\u2019s a novel argument.\u201d<\/p>\n
Associate Judge Malarao: \u201cDoes your client accept that Mr Wells didn\u2019t know?\u201d<\/p>\n
Akel: \u201cNo. That should be subject to cross-examination. The reason I say no is we don\u2019t know. I\u2019m not saying he did know. I\u2019m saying we don\u2019t know.\u201d<\/p>\n
Associate Judge Malarao: \u201cThere\u2019s been no statement of defence. If there\u2019s a statement of defence filed that says Mr Wells didn\u2019t know, you\u2019re going to have to do a reply to that. And you are not going to accept that allegation?\u201d<\/p>\n
Akel: \u201cNo, that would not be accepted. This really, sir, is a classic case where discovery will be important for many reasons.\u201d<\/p>\n
Edwards said the alleged defamatory meanings pleaded by the woman were strained, particularly the claim of being portrayed as a dangerous person who should be shunned. <\/p>\n
He said the comments were directed at broad groups (\u201clesbians\u201d, \u201cnosy neighbours\u201d), not at anyone personally. He also said modern courts were unlikely to regard merely being described as lesbian as defamatory.<\/p>\n
Akel said arguments about whether his client was identified, whether the words were defamatory, whether Wells knew her sexuality and whether there had been continuing publication were all matters for a trial, not a strikeout.<\/p>\n
He rejected NZME\u2019s argument over the word \u201clesbian\u201d, saying that the pejorative sting lay in the way sexuality was used in the piece, with words such as \u201cobjectionable\u201d and \u201cdangerous\u201d.<\/p>\n
Edwards said that the blog which published the transcription was independent of NZME and that neither it nor Wells had any idea who was behind it.<\/p>\n
But Akel said Wells and NZME were the originators of the content and he questioned why the media firm had not pursued a takedown action, under copyright law, from the American platform that hosted the blog.<\/p>\n
\u201cDespite repeated requests of NZME and Mr Wells, they have refused to engage with WordPress [the hosting platform].\u201d<\/p>\n
He said it was \u201cvery hard to understand the position that has been taken\u201d.<\/p>\n
He argued that Wells and NZME had copyright on the material and \u201cwhile they don\u2019t take action, we have a continuing defamation\u201d.<\/p>\n
NZME argued that the piece wasn\u2019t defamatory in the first place. <\/p>\n
Judge Malarao has reserved his decision.<\/p>\n
All Blacks streaming glitch: Money falls from Sky <\/p>\n
All Blacks playmaker Ruben Love. Photo \/ Photosport<\/p>\n
Sky TV is offering a partial credit to Sky Sport Now customers following a technical glitch that prevented them from watching most of the All Blacks\u2019 mid-week tour match in South Africa.<\/p>\n
As fans continued to rage about the outage on social media, Sky last night repeated an earlier apology – \u201cwe\u2019re very sorry to those Sky Sport Now customers whose viewing was interrupted\u201d – with news of a $10 credit.<\/p>\n
Sky Sport Now customers expecting to watch live coverage of the All Blacks\u2019 match against the Lions on Wednesday morning were instead confronted with stage four highlights of the Vuelta a Espa\u00f1a cycling race.<\/p>\n
\u201cSky Sport NZ just ruined my family\u2019s morning! We get up with our kids to watch the lads do the haka live and I\u2019m watching dudes in spandex pedal around a hill!\u201d wrote one customer.<\/p>\n
Another was more blunt: \u201cWhere\u2019s the fkn game @skysportnz useless.\u201d<\/p>\n
A Sky TV spokeswoman told Media Insider: \u201cWe know it was an early start for fans and incredibly frustrating for those who were impacted.\u201d<\/p>\n
The problem, she said, was due to an outage on the global technology platform that delivered Sky Sport Now\u2019s livestreams to viewers. <\/p>\n
\u201cSky Sport Now is delivered via a separate platform to our broadcast and streaming services on Sky – including Sky Box and Pod, Sky Go, Three and ThreeNow – and none of those services [was] affected.\u201d<\/p>\n
The problems were fixed, but not until after halftime.<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile this was outside of our control, as a gesture of goodwill, we\u2019re offering a $10 account credit to monthly and annual pass customers who were affected, and a full refund to customers who bought a day pass to watch the All Blacks that day,\u201d the Sky TV spokeswoman told Media Insider.<\/p>\n
On a social post last night, Sky Sport wrote: \u201cIf you were affected, please contact the Sky Sport Now Help Team at support@skysportnow.co.nz.\u201d<\/p>\n
Comment: Where was the Three back-up plan?<\/p>\n
So can Sky reassure viewers this won\u2019t happen again – and crucially during an All Blacks test, or a Warriors NRL match?<\/p>\n
\u201cWe deliver hundreds of thousands of hours of live sport every year and issues like this are rare,\u201d said the spokeswoman.<\/p>\n
Sky TV now has what is surely an obvious back-up option to overcome any future glitches. The clue was in its response further above.<\/p>\n
Sky acquired free-to-air Three and Three Now 13 months ago. It\u2019s a mystery why Sky did not – or even could not – move the All Blacks match to these channels. <\/p>\n
After all, Sky made a song and dance earlier this year when it announced Three would be the home of delayed All Blacks matches.<\/p>\n
Fifty-seven years after humankind put a man on the moon, Sky said yesterday: \u201cIt isn\u2019t currently possible to simply switch a Sky Sport Now stream across to broadcast TV at short notice.\u201d<\/p>\n
That comment appeared to ignore a key point.<\/p>\n
It\u2019s not so much switching a stream across; it\u2019s about quickly recognising a problem, and transmitting a match on a free-to-air channel it already owns, for everyone to see.<\/p>\n
That would earn the broadcaster lots of PR points and avoid the backlash it received from paying customers this week.<\/p>\n
I pushed further on why Three wasn\u2019t a contingency, and Sky said it had nothing to add. I pushed again. <\/p>\n
\u201cIt\u2019s not on the immediate roadmap but it could be a consideration,\u201d said a spokeswoman.<\/p>\n
Interestingly, TVNZ was very open about a plan to use its free-to-air channels as a backup if there were ever a problem with its $44.95 tournament pass for the recent Football World Cup. As it turned out, that wasn\u2019t required.<\/p>\n
The streaming problems were the last thing Sky TV needed this week, as it announces its full-year financial results this morning.<\/p>\n
TVNZ\/Sky TV financial results<\/p>\n
Sky TV chief executive Sophie Moloney (left) and TVNZ chief executive Jodi O’Donnell.<\/p>\n
Stay tuned to nzherald.co.nz and Media Insider this morning for the release of Sky TV\u2019s result, at 8.30am, and TVNZ\u2019s annual financial result, at 9am. <\/p>\n
Through the morning, Media Insider will also have interviews with TVNZ chief executive Jodi O\u2019Donnell and Sky TV chief executive Sophie Moloney.<\/p>\n
NZME analysis<\/p>\n