Stoltenberg v Bolton

Stoltenberg v Bolton - [2019] NSWCA 71 - NSWCA 2019 case summary — Zoe

Judgment

The appellant, Mr Stephen Stoltenberg, appeals from orders made on 15 October 2018 by Payne JA in proceedings brought in the Common Law Division by the respondent, Mr Conrad Bolton, against Mr Stoltenberg and Ms Ann Loder. Relevantly for present purposes, his Honour ordered Mr Stoltenberg to pay to Mr Bolton damages of $100,000 for defamation of Mr Bolton by Mr Stoltenberg. His Honour also made orders restraining Mr Stoltenberg from publishing or broadcasting various allegations about Mr Bolton. On 31 October 2018, Mr Stoltenberg served notice of intention to appeal from the orders made by Payne JA and filed his notice of appeal on 7 January 2019, although he did not serve it until 29 January 2019. Having regard to the quantum of damages, he is entitled to appeal as of right.
By notice of motion filed on 26 February 2019, Mr Bolton seeks an order under r 51.50 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) that Mr Stoltenberg provide security for Mr Bolton's costs of the appeal. UCPR 51.50 specifically empowers the Court to order the provision of security for costs of an appeal, but only in special circumstances.
The damages and costs ordered by Payne JA against Mr Stoltenberg have not been paid to Mr Bolton and the evidence demonstrates that Mr Stoltenberg owns no property from which such orders might be satisfied. It would follow that Mr Stoltenberg owns no property from which an order for costs could be satisfied if the appeal were to be dismissed with costs.
While no order for security may be made in the absence of special circumstances, consideration of what may constitute special circumstances is not to be fettered by any general rule of practice. Further, impecuniosity, without more, will usually be insufficient. However, impecuniosity, coupled with an appeal that is shown to be hopeless, unreasonable or of a harassing nature, may justify an order for security. On the other hand, the possibility that an order for security would result in stultification of the appeal is an important consideration to be weighed. Thus, where a bona fide and reasonably arguable appeal would be stifled by an order for security, such an order should ordinarily not be made. Further, the subject matter of the appeal, such as a question as to the liberty of an individual, or the public interest, may provide a reason for not ordering security if the order would stifle the continuation of the appeal. On the other hand, stultification does not necessarily follow from a finding of impecuniosity if, for example, it is shown that the appellant is likely to have access to funds other than the appellant's own property [1] .
Mr Stoltenberg resists the making of the order for the provision of security sought by Mr Bolton on the basis that he could not comply with it and his appeal would thereupon be stultified and that special circumstances have not been established. Mr Bolton, on the other hand, asserts that there are special circumstances in that, while Mr Stoltenberg has so organised his affairs that no property is actually owned by him, from which an order could be satisfied, he has an indirect interest in property that would enable him to obtain access funds to satisfy an order for security. Mr Bolton relies on statements made by Mr Stoltenberg to the effect that he was never again going to own anything in his own name and that, if Mr Bolton bankrupts him, it would not make the slightest difference to him.
Mr Bolton relies principally on evidence concerning land at Bellata, which is the site of the former Nandewar Inn, which burned down in 2006. On 17 November 2012, Mr Stoltenberg sent to Mr Russell Booby text messages concerning the possibility of the development of that land. Mr Booby is a solicitor who practises in Narrabri, who now acts for Mr Bolton. The messages were relevantly as follows: "Russ , something to think about , bellata pub , ive spoken to OLGR , would not be too hard to get approval to put 5 pokies back in, if it was it would be a gold mine. Greg and I still don't have resources to do it on our own. We own the land lic unencumbered , …. . Needs a bit of financial muscel [sic] and building planning skill. Smart way to do it is we should split freehold and business, we have a 50% partner in the freehold all run on normal commercial terms, release and run the pub on normal commercial terms, we have all the risks headaches and potential return running it on our own , for the 50% partner, its just a straight real estate investment, no diff to a block of flats , just bigger return. …. In a nutshell we bewd [sic] a partner in the freehold with a bit of financial muscel [sic], but more importantly …. Skill. I wont embarrass u by raising this again , if u think its wirth [sic] investigating , tell me. As u would know from the sheds, im pretty good at building / financing things on the smell of an oily rag, u would be surprised how little money / gaurantee [sic] would be needed to create a valuable asset at Belata , like i said before , u have erpertise [sic] in building / licensing that will be invaluable. Greg and i currently own the project 50/50 in a company and the shares in that company are held in our private family companies , im not personally involved .… On paper. If u were to be involved, would not matter who your nominee was, could be joshs super fund for all i care. Im want to build my stake for my kids , im never going to own anything in my name ever again after the sheds."
As will become apparent, the reference to "Greg" is a reference to Mr Greg Lamont. The messages indicate that Mr Stoltenberg has an interest of some kind in the Bellata development, which is unencumbered. Thus, the message says "we own the land" and "Greg and I currently own the project 50/50 in a company and the shares in that company are held in our private family companies". On the other hand, Mr Stoltenberg says "I'm not personally involved". The statement that Mr Stoltenberg is not "personally involved" is made in the context of the assertion "I am never going to own anything in my name ever again after the sheds". The assertion gives rise to an inference that Mr Stoltenberg has been a party to the establishment of a structure under which he personally owns nothing but exerts a degree of influence. That inference is strengthened by examination of the ownership of the Bellata development.
Tamvest Pty Ltd (Tamvest) owns the land in question. Searches of records maintained by the Australian Securities and Investment Commission (ASIC) show that Mr Greg Lamont is the only director of Tamvest and that Ms Elizabeth Rook is its secretary. The issued capital of Tamvest is held as to one half by GB Lamont Holdings Pty Ltd (Lamont Holdings) and as to one half by W Gallagher Pty Ltd (Gallagher). Ms Rook is the only director and is the secretary of Gallagher. All of the issued shares in Gallagher are beneficially owned by Mr Thomas Stoltenberg, who is Mr Stoltenberg's son. Ms Rook is Mr Stoltenberg's common law wife.
A report of 9 August 2018 in "The Courier", a newspaper published in the Narrabri Shire, stated that Narrabri Shire Council had recently approved a development application for the building of hotel accommodation on the land in question. The report described Tamvest as being "headed by Greg Lamont", who was formerly the chief executive of the old Narrabri Municipal Council. In light of the 2012 text messages, Mr Bolton contends that an inference is open that Mr Stoltenberg has an indirect interest in the Bellata development.
According to ASIC records, Mr Stoltenberg is presently the director and secretary of PSR NSW Pty Ltd (PSR), all of the shares in which are owned by Mr Stoltenberg's brother. PSR owns a property in Boggabri consisting of two lots which were purchased in June and October 2014 for $69,000 and $70,000 (the PSR Property). No mortgages are recorded on the title of the PSR Property. Both PSR and Mr Stoltenberg have lodged development applications in respect of the PSR Property. That gives rise to an inference that Mr Stoltenberg has a degree of influence over the PSR Property.
ASIC records also disclose that Western Hotel Holdings Pty Ltd (Western Hotel) own land in Brent Street, Boggabri on which the Royal Hotel stands. Mr Stoltenberg operated the Royal Hotel for many years. Ms Rook is currently the director and secretary of Western Hotel. Lamont Holdings owns 80% of the issued shares and Stoltenberg Bros Constructions Pty Ltd (Stoltenberg Bros) owns the other 20%.
ASIC records also disclose that Stoltenberg Bros owns a property situated in Lynn Street, Boggabri. Mr Stoltenberg is a former secretary of Stoltenberg Bros. The sole shareholder of Stoltenberg Bros is Mr Stoltenberg's brother. In 2015, Mr Stoltenberg applied for development approval in respect of the Lynn Street property.
Until September 2018, Mr Stoltenberg was the secretary of Amstol Holdings Pty Ltd (Amstol). Ms Rook is currently the only director and shareholder of Amstol and is the secretary of Amstol. Amstol owns land in Boggabri that is subject to a mortgage in favour of NSW Bookmakers' Co-operative Limited. Ms Rook is presently the only shareholder of Amstol. Gallagher and Lamont Holdings were previously shareholders of Amstol.
Mr Stoltenberg has held roles as director or secretary in some 33 companies. He also formerly held shares in a number of those 33 companies, some of which have been deregistered. Thus, a considerable degree of commercial sophistication can be attributed to him. Against that background, it is significant that Mr Stoltenberg ended the text message sent to Mr Booby on 17 November 2012 by saying: "Im want to build my stake for my kids , im never going to own anything in my name ever again after the sheds." On 21 June 2017, prior to a mediation of the proceedings fixed for 3 July 2017, to which all parties had consented, Mr Stoltenberg published the following: "The mediation is a total waste of time, but it's compulsory, nothing will come of it, it will then be on to the April 2018 trial that will be Bolton's Waterloo, if he turns up, he may yet fold on the steps of the Court." On 8 April 2018, the day before the commencement of the trial of the proceedings, Mr Stoltenberg published the following: "If Bolton somehow manages to beat me in this case and bankrupt me, he wont [sic] make the slightest difference to me". Thus, an inference should be drawn that Mr Stoltenberg has been mindful of the possibility of the loss of assets by reason of commercial adversity but nevertheless retains a degree of control or influence in relation to property owned by members of his family.
In support of his application for security, Mr Bolton relied on an affidavit sworn by Mr Booby on 1 March 2019 deposing to the facts summarised above. In response to Mr Booby's affidavit, Mr Stoltenberg relied on an affidavit sworn by Mr Vasilios Kalantzis, an experienced defamation solicitor. Mr Kalantzis said that he had been instructed by Mr Stoltenberg and believed that:

Mr Stoltenberg had been a secretary of a number of the Greg Lamont group of companies for a period of over 10 years; and
Mr Stoltenberg assisted Greg Lamont in company compliances and administration by being company secretary for several of his companies.
However, he gave no details about the arrangements concerning Tamvest. Mr Kalantzis also gave some evidence concerning the properties owned by Amstol, explaining that the properties owned by Amstol have been given as security for the obligations of a country galloper bookmaker's licence issued to Ms Rook.

Mr Kalantzis also said that the only income that Mr Stoltenberg and Ms Rook have is Ms Rook's income of approximately $30,000 per annum from her bookmaker's licence. Mr Kalantzis said that Mr Stoltenberg is unable to work because of serious health issues and that he had surgery in Sydney in February 2019.
It is significant that, while Mr Kalantzis explained the circumstances of Ms Rook's interest in Amstol, no attempt was made to explain the text messages sent by Mr Stoltenberg to Mr Booby in 2012 concerning the Bellata Development. It is, of course, some years since the text messages were sent. However, the ASIC searches indicate that the structure described by Mr Stoltenberg in the messages is still in place at the present time, in so far as Tamvest, the owner of the Bellata Development, is owned 50% by Lamont Holdings and 50% by Gallagher, which is owned as to 100% by Mr Stoltenberg's son.
Mr Stoltenberg has not offered any explanation for the text messages of 2012 from which an inference is clearly open that he regards himself as having considerable influence in relation to the issued share capital of Tamvest which is owned by a company, the only shareholder of which is his son. That is perfectly consistent with the statement in the 2012 text messages that "Greg and I" own the project in a company, the shares in which are held 50/50 "in our private family companies". Mr Stoltenberg did not refer to his son the owner.
Mr Stoltenberg has been represented by experienced counsel and solicitors. However, Mr Kalantzis gave evidence that the legal team are acting on the basis that they will not be paid except from any order for costs that may be made in Mr Stoltenberg's favour.
I accept that Mr Stoltenberg has instructed Mr Kalantzis that he would not be able to pay any amount ordered for security. In the absence of such evidence, I am not persuaded that that is necessarily so. I draw the inference that Mr Stoltenberg is in a position of influence in relation to Tamvest, the owner of the Bellata Development, which appears to be of some value. I also draw the inference that Mr Stoltenberg is in a position of influence in relation to PSR, the owner of the PSR Property. In the absence of any evidence from Mr Stoltenberg indicating that he would be unable to raise funds from those sources to provide security if an order were made, I am not persuaded that an order for security would stultify Mr Stoltenberg's appeal.
The reasons for judgment of Payne JA run to some 273 paragraphs over nearly 60 pages. The notice of appeal contains 25 numbered paragraphs of grounds of a total of proximity 53 issues if sub-paragraphs are separately counted. The grounds of appeal cover some five pages. Mr Stoltenberg's summary of argument filed on 22 March 2019 in support of the appeal asserts that the appeal concerns the following five questions of substance:

Grounds 1 to 11: the significance in a defamation action based on Internet content, in a non-mass context, of particulars or lack of particulars of the readers of a publication, proof of publication and extent of publication in those circumstances;
Ground 12: the assessment of defamatory meaning when the matter complained of is predominantly not about the plaintiff;
Grounds 13 to 14: the principles that apply to identification where a plaintiff is not named in the matters complained of and the relevance of proper particularisation of that identification;
Grounds 15 to 24: the principles that apply to the common law defence of qualified privilege whether the matters complained of are uploaded on a special interest website available to the public to download and the inter-relationship between identification, publication and the common law defence of qualified privilege where the plaintiff is not named in an online publication; and
Ground 25: the defence of qualified privilege under s 30 of the Defamation Act 2005 (NSW) as applies to social media publications by private individuals about politicians.

The summary of argument asserts that nearly all of the appeal grounds ultimately turn on the question of publication, namely, what was in fact pleaded, and particularised, and ultimately what was proved. Mr Stoltenberg will contend that Payne JA fell into error in relation to those matters and that subsequent errors arose thereafter by reason of the findings relating to publication and extent of publication. In the circumstances, I will not conclude that the appeal is manifestly groundless. I will assume, without expressing a view on the matter, that, for the purposes of the present application, the grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success.
I am persuaded that, on balance, special circumstances have been made out. That is to say, Mr Stoltenberg has evinced an intention to denude himself of assets that might be available to satisfy obligations incurred by him. In circumstances where he owns no assets and has already incurred significant liabilities for costs and damages that have not been satisfied, albeit they are the subject of the appeal, I consider that an order should be made for the provision of security. I am not persuaded that a modest order would stultify the appeal.
In his affidavit, Mr Booby estimated the costs likely to be incurred by Mr Bolton in the appeal would be $62,696, on the assumption that the hearing would last for one and a half days. Mr Kalantzis did not challenge that estimate in his affidavit. However, counsel for Mr Stoltenberg contended on the hearing of this application that the hearing of the appeal would not exceed one day. I consider that it is likely that, in the circumstances, only one day would be allocated for the appeal.
Security for costs is not intended to provide a full indemnity against costs that might be incurred. In the ordinary course, an order for costs will not fully compensate the successful party unless it is made on a special basis, such as solicitor and client or indemnity. Mr Booby's estimate, as I understand it, is an estimate of solicitor and client costs that are likely to be incurred for a hearing of one and a half days.
I consider that in the circumstances, the appropriate order is to require Mr Stoltenberg to provide security in the sum of $20,000. The appeal should be stayed until such time as security in that sum is provided in a form satisfactory to the Registrar. In the event that the security is not provided within 42 days, Mr Bolton should have leave to apply for dismissal of the appeal for want of despatch.

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (5 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (1)

Cases Cited (2)