Victor Cattermole against The Press

The Discussion

22. In relation to the error in stating the amount, it was promptly corrected when pointed out, with this prominent statement at the end of the article: "* Correction: An earlier version of this story incorrectly said the sum was $5000. It was in fact $500. The story has also been updated to include Victor Cattermole’s denial of the poisoning allegation. Updated at noon, July 20, 2026." The original online article was published on Friday, July 17, 2026, and the initial complaint was made on July 19, 2026. The online version was corrected on July 20, and the print correction was published on July 21.

23. This was a fulsome correction. The changes and the addition, coupled with the above statement, were sufficient to defuse the error, and this ability to correct a complaint is recognised in Principle (12) relating to corrections, which the Council applies. The print version was also corrected on Tuesday, July 21, 2026. It is also noted that the amount of the sum to be paid was not critical to the thrust of that part of the article. These factors are sufficient to assuage the inaccuracy. The second sentence also goes to remedy the alleged lack of balance.

24. We turn to the words of Mr Cattermole’s apology, which were said to be misdescribed in the article.  This apology was part of the settlement. 

25. In plain words, the apology accepted that Mr Cattermole had made communications that could have “threatened” or “provoked” the recipients and promised not to act in a “threatening way in the future”. It was implicit in that apology that threats had been made.  The article, like the apology itself, did not state that Mr Cattermole admitted to physical threats. Rather, it outlined the resolution of his “alleged” communications, which involved his apology. On its face, as a matter of straightforward deduction, the apology could cover the alleged threat to poison. There is no other “threat” mentioned in the article and the complaint that it could apply to.  On our reading of it, the apology appears to be related to the criminal proceedings as asserted by The Press, and The Press’s description of it in the article was not inaccurate or unfair.

26.Turning to the reference to what the $500 was held for, we accept that it was not a dramatically inflated statement to say that the sum was put aside. The undertaking had been given to the court. It could have been required immediately by the Court if there was a breach. Saying that the money was set aside was technically inaccurate in that the sum was not placed in a bank account, but in the circumstances, there was not a great deal of difference between providing a personal undertaking to the Court which is punishable if not fulfilled, and having the money available. We are not prepared to uphold the complaint on that ground.

27. We now turn to the article’s third paragraph which gives more detail about the threat to poison. In the initial article, there was no statement of Mr Cattermole’s position, and he was not asked to comment on Grant Thornton’s quoted statements about the threats he allegedly made.  However, on receiving Mr Cattermole’s complaint, a sentence was added. Mr Cattermole’s denial of making the threat was recorded, as was his statement that “the Crown was forced to drop the charge due to a lack of evidence”. We accept that this created the necessary balance, given that Mr Cattermole had implicitly accepted wrongdoing in his apology and was later strongly criticised in the later bankruptcy judgment Re Cattermole, ex parte Ruscoe [2026] NZHC 2502.

28. It is correct, as Mr Cattermole alleges, that the article details a $60,000 bankruptcy claim against him, whereas it does not say that Grant Thornton was holding over $13 million in cryptocurrency belonging to him. However, this assertion in the complaint about the $13,000,000 by Mr Cattermole was unsupported by any evidence and was entirely inconsistent with the bankruptcy judgment declaring Mr Cattermole bankrupt after hearing extensive submissions from him about his cryptocurrency claims. Plainly, his extreme claims against Grant Thornton were not accepted.

29.The Press could fairly assume on the information that it had that Mr Cattermole was insolvent, and that it had no obligation to raise Mr Cattermole’s extreme claims. At the time of the article, Mr Cattermole owed $54,000 in unpaid costs arising from his Cryptopia claims, which formed the basis of the bankruptcy judgment. The quoted claims of Grant Thornton that were critical of Mr Cattermole refer to facts many of which are set out in the later judgment. There is no doubt that he has a “chequered history” and the details are set out in The Press article.

30.There is no evidence of a conflict of interest. There is no hard evidence of the fact that there may be lawyers in common retained in other matters by both the publisher and Grant Thornton, and, in any event, no evidence that this was known to those involved in writing or editing the article. The Press denied the allegation of any link.

31.The article was not unfair. It reflected the many criticisms of Mr Cattermole’s actions in the bankruptcy judgment Re Cattermole, including his conduct before the Courts was not “that of a responsible litigant” (see paragraph [59] of the judgment). He has been held to be in contempt of Court in earlier proceedings, and he has incurred a succession of costs awards, “none of which he has paid” (see paragraph [59] of the judgment).

32.Therefore, the inaccuracy in the article was not particularly significant and was remedied by the correction. Given the history discussed above, and the facts referred to being supported by a court judgment, no breach of the principles is established.

Decision: The complaint is not upheld

Council members considering the complaint were Hon Raynor Asher (Chair), Hank Schouten, Tim Watkin, Guy MacGibbon, Scott Inglis, Deborah Morris, Jo Cribb, Judi Jones, Marie Shroff, Alison Thom, Andrew Chen, Susan Freeman-Greene.