March 24, 2026

#national: The man who campaigned against Māori and the Billionaire media mogul who backed him: lose

Matthew Tukaki Posted On March 24, 2026

A high-profile defamation case brought by anti co-governance campaigner Julian Batchelor against TVNZ and a disinformation researcher has been dismissed, bringing renewed attention to both the legal threshold for defamation and the influence of external funding in media-related cases.

The Auckland District Court ruled against Batchelor, finding his claim had failed on all grounds. The judge determined that the defences of truth, honest opinion and responsible communication had all been established, effectively ending the case in favour of the broadcaster and researcher involved.

The case centred on a 2023 1News report that examined Batchelor’s anti co-governance campaign and included commentary from a researcher who described aspects of his rhetoric as harmful and racist. While the court accepted those statements were capable of being defamatory, it concluded they were justified within the context in which they were made.

In delivering the decision, the court found that Batchelor’s public statements over time included language that was deliberately directed at Māori and, in many instances, was highly offensive.

The ruling also means Batchelor is expected to pay legal costs, further underlining the scale of the defeat.

Beyond the legal outcome, the case has drawn attention for the financial backing behind it. During proceedings, it emerged that the lawsuit was being funded by Canadian billionaire and NZME director Jim Grenon.

Grenon’s involvement was revealed in court after questioning, with Batchelor confirming that his legal costs were being covered by the media investor, who holds a significant stake in one of New Zealand’s largest media companies.

The connection has raised broader questions about the role of private funding in legal challenges involving media organisations, particularly where those funding cases have interests within the wider media landscape.

The case itself reflects a growing trend of legal challenges aimed at media reporting, particularly around issues of race, misinformation and public discourse. It also highlights the high bar required to succeed in defamation claims, especially where reporting is found to be grounded in fact, opinion and responsible journalism.

For media organisations, the decision reinforces the importance of editorial standards and the protections available when reporting on matters of public interest. For critics, it also signals the limits of using the courts to challenge reporting on controversial or politically charged issues.

The outcome comes at a time when debates around co-governance, race relations and freedom of expression remain highly contested in Aotearoa. Batchelor’s campaign and the response to it have been part of a wider national conversation about how these issues are discussed and understood.

With the case now resolved, attention is likely to shift to what it means for future legal action involving the media, and whether similar challenges will continue to be pursued.

For now, the court’s message is clear. Claims of defamation must meet a high threshold, and where reporting is found to be accurate, fair and responsibly presented, those claims are unlikely to succeed.