Scoop has an Ethical Paywall
Licence needed for work use Learn More

Gordon Campbell | Parliament TV | Parliament Today | News Video | Crime | Employers | Housing | Immigration | Legal | Local Govt. | Maori | Welfare | Unions | Youth | Search

 

Judgment: Internal Affairs v Wayne Robert Mansfield


IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

AUCKLAND REGISTRY
CIV 2012-404-001899

[2013] NZHC 2064

UNDER the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007
BETWEEN CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF INTERNAL AFFAIRS

Plaintiff
AND WAYNE ROBERT MANSFIELD

Defendant


[RESERVED] JUDGMENT OF WYLIE J

This judgment was delivered by Justice Wylie

on 14 August 2013 at 3.30 pm

Pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules


Introduction

[1] The plaintiff, the Chief Executive of the Department of Internal Affairs (the Department) seeks the imposition of a civil pecuniary penalty against the respondent, Mr Mansfield, under s 45 of the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Act 2007 (the Act).

[2] Mr Mansfield is an Australia citizen, ordinarily resident in Perth. He ran business seminars in New Zealand, initially through a company, Business Seminars NZ Limited, and later on his own account. The pecuniary penalty is sought in relation to what the Department says are unsolicited commercial electronic messages (colloquially known as “spam”) promoting the seminars, said to have been sent by Mr Mansfield to persons and organisations resident in New Zealand. It says that this breaches s 9(1) of the Act. The Department also says that Mr Mansfield has been served in Australia, and that he has taken no steps in the proceedings. The matter has proceeded by way of a formal proof hearing. The Department has filed affidavits in support of its assertions. It seeks a pecuniary penalty of $100,000, along with costs of $8,460 and disbursements of $1,806.54.

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading

[...]

Conclusion

[80] For the reasons outlined in this judgment, I impose a pecuniary penalty of $95,000. That penalty is payable to the Crown. I also award costs against Mr Mansfield of $8,460, and disbursements of $1,806.54. The costs and the disbursements are payable to the Department.

[Full judgment: Dept_of_Internal_Affairs_v_Mansfield_jud_20130814.pdf]


[81] Finally, I acknowledge the comprehensive and helpful submissions made by Mr Hamlin on behalf of the Department. I am grateful to him for his thorough approach to this matter.

© Scoop Media

Advertisement - scroll to continue reading
 
 
 
Parliament Headlines | Politics Headlines | Regional Headlines

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

LATEST HEADLINES

  • PARLIAMENT
  • POLITICS
  • REGIONAL
 
 

Featured News Channels


 
 
 
 

Join Our Free Newsletter

Subscribe to Scoop’s 'The Catch Up' our free weekly newsletter sent to your inbox every Monday with stories from across our network.