Greig Pilkington against the New Zealand Herald
Case Number: 3891
Council Meeting: 31 August 2026
Decision: Not Upheld
Publication: New Zealand Herald
Principle:
Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
Photographs and Graphics
Ruling Categories:
Accuracy
Balance, Lack Of
Photographs
Unfair Coverage
Overview
1. The NZ Herald published two articles online about a large subdivision in Auckland that was mired in a High Court battle with land being sold to recover a large debt.
2. The first story was published on June 24, 2026, under the headline Auckland's failed 1200-home Weiti Bay project: Land set to be sold to recover $67m-plus in debts. It was amended that day.
3. The second article was published on July 9 headlined Weiti project developer Green & McCahill Holdings owes creditors $73m, liquidators say.
4. Weiti Bay resident Greig Pilkington complained the first article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, fairness and balance and Principle (11) Photographs and graphics. Mr Pilkington also complained about the second article saying it also breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance and Principle (11) Photographs and Graphics.
5. Mr Pilkington also complained about reputational harm. This is outside the Media Council’s jurisdiction and therefore has not been addressed.
6. The complaint is not upheld.
The Article
7. The 24 June article reported that a Taiwanese family who bought a vast slice of coastal Auckland for $4 million in 1991 was about to lose the last of it - to pay a $67m-plus court debt after a 1200-home development collapsed and they lost a "high-stakes" game of "chicken".
8. The 740ha coastal site – beside a marine reserve near Whangaparāoa – is being forcibly sold by administrators. At the centre of the story was the Liu family who had brought in developer Evan Williams in 2012 to build a premium coastal village with homes and shops on their Weiti Bay site.
9. But when sales stalled, the project was plunged into a toxic court battle leading to the Court of Appeal. Though Evan Williams was a victor in court with the Court of Appeal allowing the family's land to be sold so some of the $67m-plus can be paid to his company, the battle continued.
10. The article featured several photographs of the land, a map of the site and a photograph of a gated entrance to part of the development.
The Complaint
11. Mr Pilkington complained that the article breached Principle (1) and (11). Most of Mr Pilkington’s complaint centred on the repeated use of an image depicting the entrance to his gated community which he argued created a strong visual association with his subdivision - which was functioning without issue and owner occupied.
12. Mr Pilkington was trying to sell his house at the time of the article. His house was one of 150 lots in the completed gated subdivision at Weiti Bay. He said he was concerned that the article’s framing was misleading and materially damaging to property owners within the completed development which was not tied up in the court dispute.
13. He said the article presented the Weiti Bay development as a “failed 1200 home project” when in fact it had been successfully completed. Properties had been built, sold, and occupied. The omission of these facts gave a false impression that the entire development had failed, which was not accurate and that it implied the area was abandoned.
14. He also said it mischaracterised a complex, multi-stage development as a single failed project.
15. Mr Pilkington asked for remedies which included some changes of wording to reflect the staged nature of the project and publish a correction or clarification note to ensure readers were not left with a misleading overall impression.
16. Later in the day after seeing the changes Mr Pilkington asked the NZ Herald to consider a further clarification to make it clear that: - the subdivision is established and owner occupied, and - the issues described do not reflect the viability of the existing residential community.
17. A second article published on 9 July again used the photo of the gated community, removed by the NZ Herald after the first complaint. Mr Pilkington complained again to the NZ Herald, saying it was very upsetting and for the NZ Herald to treat it as a formal complaint. He requested that the complaint be investigated promptly and that appropriate corrective action be taken.
The Response
18. The NZ Herald reviewed the original complaint and acted swiftly and acknowledged that the subdivision was privately owned and not subject to the court proceedings or forced sale.
19. It removed the image of the gated community entrance, which the Media Council notes were not requested in the original complaint.
20. It also amended the online story referring to the completed 150-lot subdivision as Weiti Bay and the wider project as the Weiti project and added extra clarification into the story with: The High Court ruling said most of the Weiti Bay subdivision’s 150 lots were sold to buyers during the first stage of the 1200-home project. Homes bought by individual buyers within the 150-lot Weiti Bay subdivision are now privately held and not part of the ongoing court battles.
21. The NZ Herald also added a clarification at the start of the story: *This story has been amended to clarify that homes purchased as part of the Weiti Bay subdivision, during the project’s first stage, are now privately-held and not part of the current court proceedings.
22. When Mr Pilkington came back with a further request for more clarification the NZ Herald stood by the accuracy of the article but made further changes. These included adding the word "completed" to the clarification which was moved to the top of the story reading: *This story has been amended to clarify that homes purchased as part of the completed Weiti Bay subdivision, during the project’s first stage, are now privately-held and not part of the current court proceedings.
23. It also added in bold near the top of the story: The first stage of the development was successfully completed - a 150-lot Weiti Bay subdivision which is now a privately-owned functioning community.
24. Regarding the second complaint about the use of the gated community entrance photo, again the NZ Herald replied that they had removed it and thanked Mr Pilkington for pointing it out.
Final Comments
25. Mr Pilkington acknowledged the NZ Herald's efforts to amend the original article and remove the imagery. However, despite being aware of the confusion and potential harm to residents of the completed subdivision, they published another article using the same photo.
26. While the NZ Herald had explained it was inadvertent use by a different reporter, Mr Pilkington said it pointed to a failure of editorial processes.
The Discussion
27. This complaint raises Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, and (11) Photographs and Graphics.
28. On Principle (1), the NZ Herald responded quickly to Mr Pilkington’s complaints and dealt with them appropriately. The first complaint was dealt with on the same day by amending the story, adding a clarification and added further wording after correspondence with Mr Pilkington.
29. It should be noted that the NZ Herald also proactively removed the photograph of the gated community entrance, even though Mr Pilkington had not asked for that in his complaint. It also provided Mr Pilkington with a link to the amended story. The Media Council notes that in his response Mr Pilkington said he was satisfied with what had been suggested.
30. The Media Council considers that the NZ Herald acted swiftly to address Mr Pilkington’s concerns and went a step further by removing the image of the gated community without a request to do so. This was proactive and a sign that it understood that Mr Pilkington’s subdivision was not included in the large swathe of land under question in the court documents.
31. Its reporting concerned the wider Weiti development project, associated debt, litigation, and liquidator actions all a matter of public record. Nowhere in the articles did it state that the residents of the completed subdivision were subject to the court proceedings. The liquidators describe the location of the company’s principal asset as at Weiti Bay. Therefore, the Council see no reason to uphold Principle (1).
32. When the photograph was accidentally republished in the 9 July article, the NZ Herald immediately removed it upon being notified and acknowledged the oversight.
33. While the Media Council recognises that this is a difficult time for Mr Pilkington this was an unfortunate breakdown in internal newsroom communication. The NZ Herald took all steps to remedy quickly and took down the image on both occasions. Principle (11) is not upheld.
Decision: The complaint is not upheld
Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Bernadette Courtney, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Ben France-Hudson, Jo Cribb, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Pulotu Tupe Solomon-Tanoai, Rachael Heslop
Scott Inglis declared a conflict of interest and did not vote.