Marianne (Kyla) Bottriell against the National Business Review
Case Number: 3836
Council Meeting: 16 March 2026
Decision: Upheld
Publication: National Business Review
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. The National Business Review (NBR) published an article on its paywalled website on December 8, 2025, under a general business tagline and headlined No comment on FMA rumours about Stobo investigation. The article had a subheading - Sources say the MBIE probe of market regulator chair relates to a trip he took to Europe with a former FMA staffer.
2. Ms Marianne (Kyla) Bottriell complains that the article breaches Media Council Principles (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, (2) Privacy, and (12) Corrections. The complaint is upheld on Principle (1) and (6) but is not upheld on Principle (2) and (12).
The Article
3. NBR’s article reports on rumours swirling within the Financial Markets Authority (FMA) after its chairman, Craig Stobo, agreed to step aside for an investigation, with speculation focusing on his June trip to Europe.
4. The story said that the Ministry of Business, Innovation, Industry and Employment (MBIE) would lead an independent investigation as the monitoring department for the FMA. It quoted MBIE as saying it would make no further comment until the investigation was complete. The article contained speculation based on multiple unnamed FMA sources that the investigation may relate to a June trip that Mr Stobo took to Europe.
5. Included in the story were social media posts picturing Mr Stobo and the complainant in an official line-up photograph of delegates. One was a LinkedIn post from Estonia’s Finantsinspektsioon/Financial Supervision about hosting Craig Stobo and the complainant, a former FMA staffer, at a meeting in June. The second post embedded in the article was a post from Credinto Eesti tagging both Mr Stobo and complainant. The rest of the article focused on the purpose of the meeting.
6. The article referred to the MBIE statement and quoted the FMA as saying they had nothing to add to MBIE’s statement. It also had quotes from Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson confirming concerns were raised with him and they were sufficient enough to warrant further investigation.
7. MBIE, Mr Simpson, the FMA, and Mr Stobo declined to comment. The complainant was also approached for comment.
The Complaint
8. The complainant complained that the article breached Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance, Principle (2) Privacy, and Principle (12) Corrections.
9. Her complaint centres on being identified by name and image in the reporting about an investigation into another individual. The complainant said there was no lawful or journalistic ethical basis to draw her, as an unrelated private individual, into a story about a public Ministerial investigation concerning another person.
10. The complainant said the headline caused reputational harm and was defamatory.
11. The complainant said repeating unverified rumours in print from unnamed sources did not meet standards of accuracy, fairness and balance. Ms Bottriell said: “relying on the fact my lawyer’s correspondence was marked ‘not for publication’ is a ‘nonsense’”. She had given the NBR, through her lawyer, a strenuous denial of any relationship between her and the FMA chairman.
12. The complainant said the publication of the story would leave the reasonable reader thinking she was in an inappropriate relationship with the chairman and that was why she was at the event in Estonia. She believed NBR’s story clearly conveyed that the investigation was about the chairman’s relationship with her. There was no such relationship, and she had travelled alone to Estonia.
13. The complainant was contacted by NBR via LinkedIn at 11.47am on December 8, asserting unverified claims from “multiple sources”. These claims alleged that the MBIE investigation into the FMA Chair related to “an inappropriate relationship with a female and now former FMA staffer and a trip to Europe.”
14. The article was published by NBR at 1pm. The complainant says she was not given a publication deadline and therefore had no meaningful opportunity to respond before publication. Her lawyer had replied to the journalist at 4.43pm the same day to advise the rumours were baseless and untrue. Her lawyer confirmed that while she had attended the same event as Mr Stobo, she had travelled alone to many countries (including Estonia) and not “with” the Chair. Her lawyer said no sexual, romantic, or inappropriate relationship existed, and that any implication otherwise would be defamatory, and that the complainant should not be named. The article was nevertheless published shortly afterwards. Giving the complainant just over an hour to respond before publication was unfair.
15. The complainant said that shortly after NBR’s publication, at 6.29pm,her lawyer again wrote to NBR on the day of the publication to deny the rumours, correct the factual position, and that the statement that she travelled with the Chair was inaccurate and misleading. NBR was asked to remove any identifying references, correction of the subheading, and to then discuss an apology and retraction.
16. She said NBR’s response was that no allegation had been made against her directly or by innuendo that she had not conducted herself with the highest standards of integrity and professionalism at all times. The complainant said this was plainly incorrect on the face of the story. If the investigation related solely to the chairman’s travel, there was no need to identify her. Publishing created a misleading and damaging impression, unsupported by any verified facts and relied on false rumours. The story breached Principle (1). It was not accurate, fair or balanced.
17. In addition to her concerns about the content of the article, the complainant also observed that the headline and subheading are publicly visible outside NBR’s paywall and appear prominently in search results associated with the complainant's name. She said this compounded harm. NBR’s failure to promptly and fairly correct the story engaged Principle (12), the complainant says.
18. The complainant compared the approach taken by other media outlets. She said:
- The NZ Herald reported on the MBIE investigation on December 10 without naming or identifying her with its coverage focused on the subject of the investigation and the broader governance and trust implications. It did not speculate about or draw in unrelated third parties.
- The Post published an article that identified the complainant by name and image, despite the investigation not relating to her, and did so without approaching her for comment prior to publication. The complainant formally complained to The Post which subsequently acknowledged and corrected certain factual inaccuracies but refused to remove the complainant’s name and photograph.
19. The complainant said as a woman, her reputation was publicly and permanently damaged without verified facts, without notice of a publication deadline, and without genuine consideration of her response.
20. She also said hers was not an isolated case and that NBR had published unsubstantiated rumours about women who have resigned from the FMA, with adverse impacts on their careers. She detailed former stories.
The Response
21. NBR co-editors Hamish McNicol and Calida Stuart-Menteath responded to the complaint saying they stood by the reporting.
22. They said the original story was based on a short press release from MBIE that it had commenced an investigation into matters that have been raised about Financial Markets Authority chair Craig Stobo. There were no details about what the investigation was about.
23. Over the course of the following weekend Mr McNicol said he had received information from two separate and well-placed sources that the investigation related to a trip to Europe during 2025 and allegations of an inappropriate relationship with a junior female FMA staffer.
24. Mr McNicol said he put those allegations to both the FMA and MBIE, as well as Mr Stobo, the complainant, and Commerce and Consumer Affairs Minister Scott Simpson. He put the allegations to the complainant as she was clearly identified in publicly available LinkedIn posts as having been in Europe with Mr Stobo during 2025, and her publicly available LinkedIn profile showed she was no longer employed by the FMA.
25. While NBR received no comments from MBIE, the FMA, Mr Stobo and Mr Simpson to the specific source allegations, they did publish a story before hearing a response from the complainant. That story referred to the fact people were openly saying the investigation may have something to do with a trip Mr Stobo took to Europe during the 2025 northern summer, not the more specific allegations that it had something to do with an inappropriate relationship. It included the no comment responses from the FMA, MBIE, Simpson and Mr Stobo, as well as the fact the complainant had been approached for comment.
26. NBR said it also relied on publicly available information about the European trip Mr Stobo took in 2025 – both his interview with The Platform and the various LinkedIn posts used in the story.
27. NBR said the story simply noted that multiple sources suggested the investigation had something to do with a trip to Europe, and evidence of that trip he took to Europe.
28. While NBR put the allegations of an inappropriate relationship to parties for comment, they did not report them in the story itself. The fact the complainant was in Estonia at the same event was publicly available information.
29. NBR said an investigation into the chair of the FMA, whose statutory duty is to promote and facilitate the development of fair, efficient, and transparent financial markets, was of incredibly high public interest.
30. NBR said that while the complainant’s lawyer contacted them, it was made clear the correspondence was not for publication. It noted that at no time had the complainant provided NBR with an on the record statement relating to the story.
31. NBR also noted that The Post had also refused to remove the complainant’s name and photograph from its coverage, which supports the NBR’s stance.
32. NBR said the complainant had not provided evidence of the damage to her. Nor had she provided evidence to back up her claim the NBR has published unsubstantiated rumours about women who have resigned from the FMA, with adverse impacts on their careers.
33. In summary NBR stood by its reporting because of the strong public interest in the Stobo investigation announced by MBIE; and the responsible reporting of the facts. Sources linked the investigation to his trip to Europe and NBR reported facts in the public domain about the trip. The fact that Mr Stobo and the complainant – an FMA employee – were in Estonia together was reported as fact.
34. Though they were asked whether there was a relationship, NBR says no such implication was reported in the story.
The Discussion
35. The Media Council agrees that a story about a Government-ordered investigation into the chair of the Financial Markets Authority is a matter of high public interest. We understand that the complainant is unhappy about being in a story about the investigation and having her photograph included, when she was not the subject of the investigation itself.
Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance
36. NBR was explicitly told by the complainant’s lawyer that she had travelled alone to Estonia. The subheading on the story uses the word “with”, implying that she had travelled with Mr Stobo or as a pair. She denied this fact through her lawyer and the complainant’s lawyer asked for this to be corrected. It was not. NBR, even though they had been told this by the complainant’s lawyer, refused to clarify that the parties - Mr Stobo and the complainant - had attended the same event but had not travelled with one another. Not correcting this fact based on the lawyer’s letter could suggest unprofessional behaviour from the complainant. The Council upholds Principle (1) under Fairness, due to the use of the word “with” which implies they travelled together. Using the word “with” was unfair.
37. Using the word “with” was unfair because no evidence was provided, there was no reference to any source, and Ms Bottriell was not given sufficient time (1 hour and 13 minutes) to comment.
Principle (6) Headlines and Captions
38. The fact that the subheading did not reflect the article falls under Principle (6) Headlines and Captions which states that “headlines, subheadings, and captions should accurately and fairly convey the substance or a key element of the report they are designed to cover”. The subheading “Sources say the MBIE probe of market regulator chair relates to a trip he took to Europe with a former FMA staffer” implies the two travelled together. There was no further mention in the story or anything to back up the alleged "with" part of the travel arrangements. The story outlined a trip, its purpose and the investigation, no more. The Council upholds Principle (6) relating to the subheading.
Principle (12) Corrections
39. Turning to the complaint under Principle (12) Corrections; this is not upheld. The Council is not in a position, based on the material provided by both NBR and the complainant, to rule on the Corrections Principle (12). Adequate proof, (for instance Airline tickets) was not provided, by Ms Bottriell. However, the Council deals with this issue further under Principle (6) regarding the inaccuracy of the subheading.
Principle (2) Privacy
40. The complaint suggests, though not explicitly, that a reader would reasonably think, as she was named and photographed at the “trip in question”, that she was guilty by association. However, the complainant is clearly not being investigated. The report does not suggest that in any form. Did the publication need to name and use her photograph? Using the photograph of the complainant and Mr Stobo at the event placed the two together at the same events but again in a professional capacity. It is to be noted that Ms Bottriell appears to have posed with others for the joint photograph. There were two photos of the complainant at events, used in separate publicly facing social media posts.
41. The Council notes the photographs were taken from official social media accounts of organisations visited by the complainant in a professional capacity. As these were public business events and the photographs were shared by bona fide organisations, there was no reasonable expectation of privacy. The complaint is not upheld under Principle (2).
Decision: The complaint is upheld (with dissent in relation to Principle (2)), under Principle (1) and Principle (6).
It is not upheld on Principle (2) and (12).
Dissent in relation to Principle (2) by Hank Schouten
This complaint should also be upheld under Principle (2) Privacy.
This Principle 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."
It is clear the investigation of Financial Markets Authority chairman Craig Stobo is a matter of significant public record or public interest.
However, NBR went further than that. It reported there was speculation the investigation related to a trip to Europe and then linked in the complainant on the basis of unsubstantiated rumour. Despite a categorical denial from her lawyer, it named the complainant, said he travelled with her and ran two conference photos showing her in small group line-ups with Mr Stobo.
The complainant had good grounds for complaint. NBR has not made a case to explain how naming her and running the photos was a matter of significant public record or public interest. By reporting unsupported rumour in this manner, it failed to respected her right to privacy.
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