Divek Thapar against Stuff
Case Number: 3839
Council Meeting: 16 March 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Privacy
Headlines and Captions
Corrections
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Errors
Headlines and Captions
Privacy
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. Stuff published an article headlined, “Millions owed and assets sold: Christchurch restaurateur’s actions under scrutiny”, on January 16, 2026. The article detailed how a restaurant owner’s actions were being investigated after two of his businesses were liquidated, owing more than $2.3m.
2. Divek Thapar complains that the article initially contained a photograph that featured and identified his wife. He says his wife had only been a company employee and had no business ownership, control, or financial responsibility.
3. He complains the article breaches Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance; Principle (2) Privacy; Principle (6) Headlines and Captions; and Principle (12) Corrections. The complaint is upheld on three Principles.
The Article
4. The article, published on Friday, January 16, this year, outlines how Thomas Kurian opened MG Road Eatery in Christchurch in December 2023 near Bikanervala, another restaurant he owned. He ran into financial trouble nearly 18 months later.
5. The first business to fail was Bikanervala Christchurch Ltd - the company which ran Bikanervala. Mr Kurian was sole director and majority shareholder. The company owed $800,000 to the IRD when liquidators were appointed in April 2025. The figure later rose to nearly $1m.
6. Mr Kurian sold Bikanervala restaurant a month before the company went bust.
7. The IRD forced Stepping Stone Hospitality Ltd, which traded as MG Road Eatery, into liquidation last September. It owed more than $1.5m to creditors. Mr Kurian, that company’s sole director and shareholder, sold its assets, including the MG Road Eatery name, and transferred the restaurant’s lease to another company, six days before it went under.
8. The liquidators, in their first report into Stepping Stone Hospitality, said: “We will investigate the actions of the director and the affairs of the company to identify if there are any insolvent transactions, avenues for recovery or breaches of the law which we may refer to the authorities for further investigation.”
9. One of the liquidators told Stuff that transferring a business so close to a liquidation was a red flag. “Where did the money go? We are concerned about it being sold for true value. Assets are the same.” Directors were advised only to sell a business and its assets when the company was still solvent, she said. “That was not done here, and that is why we are so concerned.”
10. The article contained a photo within the text of Mr Kurian, and former MG Road Eatery manager Jaspreet Kaur. The caption read: “MG Road Eatery owner Thomas Kurian, left, and manager Jaspreet Kaur, pictured when the restaurant first opened.” Ms Kaur was not mentioned in the story text.
The Complaint
11. Ms Kaur’s husband, Divek Thapar, complained to The Press on Saturday, January 17, about “a serious breach of privacy” involving his wife. The Press forwarded the complaint to Stuff on Monday, January 19.
12. He outlined how they had requested the photo be removed from a news story in September 2025. Ms Kaur was never an owner or shareholder of the company, and it was liquidated after she left the business. This repeated exposure had caused severe emotional distress, especially as she was pregnant at the time and they now had a newborn. Other news outlets circulated her image.
13. He requested immediate removal of the photo and his wife’s name from online and print publications. He also wanted a public correction or clarification stating his wife was not involved in the company’s financial matters and was only an employee, plus a written apology. He asked for steps to be taken to prevent future publication.
14. Just removing the image was insufficient. “This is the third time my wife’s image has been used without consent (May 2025, September 2025, and January 2026), despite a prior written assurance that the image would be removed”.
15. Family, friends, and acquaintances had repeatedly contacted them, questioning her alleged involvement in matters she had no part in. The matter had damaged her reputation and caused serious concern regarding future employment prospects because potential employers might assume she had been involved in financial or legal wrongdoing.
16. NZ Punjabi News had republished the content but removed it after he complained. The article and image had been widely circulated on Facebook, which significantly amplified the harm.
The Response
17. Stuff responded that it was reviewing the complaint and would edit the image. Ms Kaur’s image and details were removed. It went on to say that the article did not allege misconduct on Ms Kaur’s part, her image was removed, and Stuff would ensure it was not republished. “We acknowledge your comments regarding the emotional impact on your family.”
18. In its formal Media Council response, Stuff said that regarding Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, the article reported the liquidations of Thomas Kurian’s companies, the amounts owed to creditors and Inland Revenue and the liquidators’ statements. It did not allege any wrongdoing by Ms Kaur.
19. The caption accurately described her role when the business opened. The reporting was based on official liquidation documents and on-the-record comment from the liquidators. The matters were of public interest. Stuff acted promptly and did not accept the article was inaccurate, unfair, or unbalanced.
20. Regarding Principle (2) Privacy, the photograph was taken shortly after the restaurant opened. The caption reflected the context in which the photograph was taken. No private facts were disclosed.
21. The complainant refers to earlier publications in May and September 2025. Those stories were published on press.co.nz (The Press), owned by Stuff Limited. Stuff.co.nz, the subject of this complaint, is owned and operated by Stuff Digital Limited. Stuff Digital has no editorial control over The Press and no visibility of complaints made to that publication.
22. The same journalist wrote both the 2025 and 2026 stories, but he has been employed by Stuff.co.nz since the 2025 publication. The Press did not make him aware of any concerns or amendments made at that time. Stuff was unaware of prior concerns when the January 2026 article was published.
23. Stuff has no control over how external social media parties share or republish links to publicly available news.
24. Stuff referred to Principle (6) Headlines and Captions, saying the headline accurately reflected the article’s subject matter and the caption accurately described Mr Thapar’s wife’s role at the time the photograph was taken. It did not suggest any involvement in financial or legal wrongdoing.
25. In terms of Principle (12) Corrections, Stuff was unaware of previous concerns raised with The Press.
The Discussion
26. The repeated publication of Ms Kaur’s image clearly caused significant distress.
27. The Press published the photograph last May, and again in September in this article on Mr Kurian’s financial problems. It removed the photo once Mr Thapar complained, saying, in an email at the time, it would ensure the photo was “no longer associated with the story”. Stuff Digital then republished the same photo in a follow-up article in January. Stuff Ltd owns both newsrooms, and the same journalist wrote both stories complained about. It is understandable that Mr Thapar sees this as an unacceptable, repeated mistake.
28. However, the Media Council acknowledges The Press and Stuff Digital operate as separate entities, although the complainant could not be expected to know this. This decision focuses on the complaint as it relates to Stuff Digital’s January article.
29. Mr Thapar cites four Principles. The first is Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance. The relevant part of this Principle is fairness. Was it fair for Stuff to include an image of a former employee when that person had nothing to with the company’s financial management or liquidation?
30. The Council believes it was not fair. The liquidations and subsequent spotlight put on Mr Kurian’s actions had nothing to do with Ms Kaur. Including her image and identity creates a risk people might believe she is involved in the downfall of these businesses and potential misconduct being investigated. This visual association taints her and potentially impacts her professional reputation. Greater care should have been taken.
31. In terms of Principle (2) Privacy, the relevant part says: “Everyone is normally entitled to privacy of person, space and personal information and these rights should be respected by publications. Nevertheless, the right of privacy should not interfere with publication of significant matters of public record or public interest.”
32. In this instance, publishing Ms Kaur’s image and name was not a matter of significant public record or public interest. Yes, some people would have known Ms Kaur had been a manager at one of Mr Kurian’s restaurants. However, Ms Kaur had moved on and had nothing to do with these financial issues and potential wrongdoing. There was no justifiable, relevant reason to include her image and identity. She was simply a former employee and had every right to expect that she would not be publicly dragged into this. She was entitled to privacy in this respect, and it was breached.
33. The Council sees no issue with the article headline and the caption that accompanied the photo in question. The article headline is accurate. The caption is accurate as far as reflecting what the photo showed and the context in which it was taken. The opening of the restaurant is part of the story’s background narrative. There is no breach of Principle (6) Headlines and Captions.
34. Principle (12) includes that, “Significant errors should be promptly corrected with fair prominence” and “In some circumstances it will be appropriate to offer an apology”.
35. This was not a factual error per se. However, corrective action was required. The Council commends Stuff for promptly removing Ms Kaur’s image once alerted. But was that enough given the gravity of the error? The Council believes it was not. The inclusion of Ms Kaur’s image and the harm her husband says it has caused cannot be mitigated by just editing the photo. Stuff had an obligation to go further. Updating online articles with correcting notes can enhance a publication’s credibility, demonstrate adherence to the highest editorial standards, provide readers with transparency and can resolve complaints. In this case, Stuff should have been upfront by adding a clarifying statement to the article as the complainant requested to achieve fair prominence. There is no evidence of any apology. This part of the complaint is upheld.
Decision:
36. The complaint is upheld under Principles (1), (2) and (12). It is not upheld on Principle (6).
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon,
Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom
Guy MacGibbon and Bernadette Courtney declared a conflict to interest and did not vote.