Fred Witton against Stuff
Case Number: 3896
Council Meeting: 31 August 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: Stuff
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Comment and Fact
Headlines and Captions
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. On 25 July 2026 Stuff published an article headed Where’s the boat? Millions owed and assets reported stolen in major construction firm collapse. The article is about the collapse of businesses owned by Mr Fred Witton and Ross Troughton. Mr Witton complains that the article breaches Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (4) Comment and Fact and (6) Headlines and Captions. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
2. TW Group Holdings, TW Civil and RMS Contracting, three connected civil engineering companies, went into receivership in November 2024 and were later liquidated. The companies had undertaken major infrastructure work, but together had liabilities of more than $19 million, with creditors facing a substantial shortfall.
3. A central focus of the article is a Ramco Ultimate 9000 boat and trailer, valued at about $200,000, which receivers BDO have been unable to find. The boat is described as a one-of-a-kind model in New Zealand. Police and private investigators have been involved, and insurers have declined claims relating to the boat and other missing assets.
4. The article reports that the receivers said directors Mr Witton and Mr Troughton had provided “no satisfactory response” about the boat's whereabouts. Mr Witton rejected any suggestion that he and Mr Troughton were responsible, telling Stuff that they were “definitely not to blame” and that the receivers were in control of all assets by the time they left.
5. The story also describes what happened after the collapse, noting that a new company, Taiao Civil, was incorporated three days after the receivership by Mr Witton's father-in-law. Mr Witton and Mr Troughton were employed by the company as senior managers.
The Complaint
6. Mr Witton complains that the article creates an overall impression that goes beyond the facts reported, with the potential to cause significant reputational harm. He says repeated references imply that he knew the whereabouts of the missing assets and was involved in their disappearance. He says that, combined with the omission of relevant context, this amounts to inaccuracy and a lack of fairness, in breach of Principle (1).
7. More specifically, Mr Witton says that Stuff has misinterpreted the BDO receivership report. He says that the report clearly identifies that some money owed to RMS Contracting from third parties remained uncollected due to disputes arising before the receivership, some over alleged defects on certain projects. Mr Witton says that Stuff spliced this information into a narrative section describing missing assets, leading the reader to be given a false impression that RMS performed incompetent work or deliberately triggered disputes to hide money.
8. He says describing the missing assets as “stolen goods” overstates what is known. It has not been established that the assets were stolen. While acknowledging that the article stops short of expressly alleging that Mr Witton was involved in the disappearance of the company assets there are repeated inferences to his knowing where they are or having taken them, which he denies. He also says that placing the missing assets alongside references to Taiao Civil in the article’s chronology suggests a connection between that company and the former companies or their assets, which Mr Witton also denies.
9. The complainant objects to the mention of a private investigator attending his home without the inclusion of sufficient context. He says his comments on these matters are substantially outweighed by repeated references to missing assets, police investigations and recovery efforts, resulting in a lack of balance.
10. Mr Witton complains that Stuff’s inclusion of his LinkedIn profile stating he had “strong business acumen” up against the “starkness of a business collapse” was mocking and a breach of Principle (4), failing “to distinguish between independent facts and malicious conjecture.”
11. On the heading, “Where’s the boat? Millions missing in major construction firm collapse,” Mr Witton says it reduces a complex, multi-million-dollar business failure to a salacious headline that exaggerates and misleads, rather than accurately reflecting the substance of the matter—the company’s receivership. He considers this a breach of Principle (6) – Headlines and Captions.
12. In his final comments, Mr Witton says that a number of terms used in the article may be difficult for readers to understand. He says the publisher should explain technical terms to help readers avoid being misled and to reduce the risk of resulting reputational damage.
13. Mr Witton again challenges the article’s use of “stolen”, saying there is no evidence that anything was stolen and that Stuff relied on unverified Facebook posts. He says police confirmed receiving a report only in relation to the trailer, not the boat.
14. In relation to Taiao Civil, Mr Witton says omissions in the article about the circumstances of his and Mr Troughton’s employment have cumulatively created an impression of suspected illegal activity, which he denies.
The Response
15. On receipt of the initial complaint, Stuff made minor “non-substantive amendments” to strengthen attribution in several places but otherwise stand by the article.
16. Stuff refutes the central complaint that material from the Accounts Receivable section of the BDO report was spliced into discussions about the missing assets, giving a misleading narrative. They say that the article takes the same sequence as the BDO report, first reporting on the uncollected revenue and related disputes then moving on to issues and actions related to the unrecovered company assets.
17. The article summarised the receivers’ discussion rather than reproducing every section heading verbatim, which is a normal feature of news reporting and did not alter the meaning or context. It consistently distinguished between sources, attributing information about the receivers’ investigations, recovery efforts and findings to the receivers or their reports. Mr Witton’s responses were also reported throughout, including his statements that he did not know where the assets were, believed the receivers had assumed control of them, and had been as helpful as possible. Readers were therefore presented with both the receivers’ position and Mr Witton’s response.
18. Stuff says that the article did not state that either Mr Witton or Mr Troughton stole company assets. It did report the receivers’ actions in attempting to recover the property, quoting them as they had “written to the directors demanding return of these assets but to date have had no satisfactory response.” The article also repeatedly included Mr Witton’s explanations and comments on this matter.
19. Stuff considers the phrase “reported stolen,” in relation to the missing assets, to be justified. They had confirmation from a number of sources that the assets had been reported to the police as stolen and made no comment that theft had been established of that anyone had been found responsible.
20. They say that comment on Taiao Civil was relevant to the story. The article accurately reported publicly available information about the company and clearly included Mr Riding’s response that Taiao Civil did not own any RMS Contracting assets and had nothing to do with RMS. They say that read as a whole, the article did not suggest Taiao Civil possessed or received company assets.
21. The article recounted the engagement of the private investigators taken from the BDO report and included Mr Witton’s account of their visit to his home and his response to that.
22. Stuff says that the inclusion of Mr Witton’s own description of his professional experience from his LinkedIn page was a factual reference and was not accompanied by editorial opinion or ridicule.
23. Stuff says that both the push notification, Where’s the boat? Millions owned, assets reported stole in major firm collapse and the article heading, both accurately reflected the content of the article in signalling the collapse of the companies, the missing assets and the significant debt.
The Discussion
24. While Mr Witton alleges breaches of Principles (1), (4) and (6), much of his complaint concerns the inferences he says readers may draw from the article and the resulting impact, particularly on his reputation. The Media Council’s consideration is not whether the article is damaging to his reputation in itself, but whether those inferences arise from reporting that is inaccurate, unfair or misleading, or from a headline that does not fairly reflect the substance of the article.
25. Everybody, including Mr Witton, find that the reporting of the BDO report follows its sequence, dealing first with uncollected revenue and related disputes before turning to the missing company assets and the steps taken to recover them. This is a straightforward account of the report and does not draw the conclusions or express the opinions alleged by Mr Witton. The comments attributed to the receivers are also fairly balanced by Mr Witton’s comments in the article.
26. The Council notes Mr Witton’s concern that the references to the missing assets, including “reported stolen”, may have led readers to infer that he was involved in their disappearance or that there was a connection with Taiao Civil. However, the article did not state or suggest that Mr Witton or Mr Troughton had stolen the assets.
27. The reference to the assets having been “reported stolen” was supported by police confirmation that a report had been made concerning the missing trailer, while the receivers’ efforts to recover the boat and other assets provided a reasonable basis for reporting the issue in this way. Readers may draw their own conclusions from the facts reported, but that does not make the reporting inaccurate or unfair. The article was investigative in nature and reported the receivers’ actions and concerns, while also including Mr Witton’s explanations and denials. The Media Council therefore does not uphold this aspect of the complaint.
28. The Council agrees that the establishment of Taiao Civil and the subsequent employment of Mr Witton and Mr Troughton were pertinent to the story. This information was reported in a straightforward and factual manner, with Mr Riding’s position that Taiao Civil had no ownership of, or involvement with, RMS Contracting’s assets clearly and fairly represented. The Council does not consider that the reporting, read as a whole, suggested that Taiao Civil possessed or received company assets.
29. The Council considers that the reference to the private investigator was relevant to the receivers’ efforts to locate the missing assets and was supported by the BDO report. The article included Mr Witton’s account of the visit and his response to it. While the complainant considers that his comments were outweighed by the article’s repeated references to the missing assets, police and recovery efforts, the Council considers that the article, read as a whole, provided sufficient opportunity for his position to be understood. The Council does not consider that the reporting was materially lacking in balance.
30. The Media Council considers that the reference to Mr Witton’s description of his professional experience was a factual use of publicly available information. It does not consider that the wording amounted to editorial comment or ridicule and therefore finds no breach of Principle (4).
31. While the wording of both the headline and push notification is catchy, the Council considers both headings accurately convey the article’s central themes: the collapse of the companies, the significant debt and the missing assets. On that basis, the Media Council does not consider that the headlines breach Principle (6).
32. Readers will inevitably draw inferences and reach their own conclusions when reading an investigative article of this nature. The Council’s overall finding, however, is that the article provided a factual account of the receiver’s findings and actions, and that Mr Witton’s responses and explanations were included and given due weight. While the article may have left readers with questions or prompted inferences about Mr Witton’s involvement, the Council does not consider that those inferences were presented as established fact or that they arose from inaccurate or unfair reporting.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld on Principles (1), (4) or (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, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoai, Rachael Heslop
Guy MacGibbon declared a conflict of interest and did not vote