Injunction Refused (Press, 19 July 1972)
This is a Generative AI summary of this newspaper article. It may contain errors or omissions. Please note that the language in the summary is reflective of the original article and the societal attitudes of the time in which it was written.
Summary: Injunction Refused (Press, 19 July 1972)
On 19 July 1972, the Supreme Court in Wellington dismissed an application by Patricia Maureen Bartlett, a primary school teacher from Lower Hutt, for an interim injunction to prevent the publication of a cookbook titled "Patricia Bartlett Cookbook." Mr Justice Roper presided over the case, stating that it was not practical to determine definitively whether the book was "unquestionably libellous" without its contents being presented in court. Miss Bartlett's counsel, Mr G. W. Alderdice, argued that the book contained references that would potentially defame her, subjecting her to public ridicule and contempt. He highlighted the urgency of the situation, noting that the publication appeared imminent, yet the publisher, Alister Taylor, had not provided access to the manuscript or related materials. Despite attempts to obtain the necessary documents via a subpoena, the exact contents of the book remained unknown, complicating the case. Counsel for Mr Taylor, Mr H. C. Mac Neil, contended that there was insufficient evidence to even establish a prima facie case of libel based on Miss Bartlett's affidavit. He pointed out that the plaintiff had alleged criminal libel, and under the Evidence Act, the defendant could not be compelled to provide evidence that might incriminate him. Mr Alderdice acknowledged the difficulties faced due to the lack of information about the book but insisted that Miss Bartlett did not intend to obstruct the publication of a potentially valuable work. Ultimately, Mr Justice Roper expressed sympathy for Miss Bartlett's predicament but concluded that it was impossible for the court to succeed in granting the injunction without knowing the book’s contents. He indicated that if the book turned out to be libellous post-publication, Miss Bartlett would have appropriate legal recourse. Following the dismissal of her application, Mr Taylor was awarded costs amounting to $40.
Important Information
The text on this page is created, in the most part, using Generative AI and so may contain errors or omissions. It is supplied to you without guarantee or warranty of correctness. If you find an error or would like to make a content suggestion please get in contact
The text on this page is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 New Zealand