Lee and Mr, Mr Jones

Investment advisor Chris Lee. Photo / Mark Mitchell

As the world now knows, Bob Jones and Chris Lee had a thing goin' on.

And because it was much too strong for either Jones or Lee to let go, the result was a highly entertaining court case that titillated the nation last week.

I can't discuss the details of the case, mainly because I don't know them, but, allegedly, the spectacle of these two heavyweights slugging it out in court drew quite a crowd.

According to sources, the Wellington courtroom was packed full of investment types cheering on property magnate Sir Robert Jones in his, ultimately successful, defamation battle against the Kapiti-based sharebroker Lee.

For Lee has offended plenty of investment managers in his time via his colourful newsletter, with his opinions often widely distributed in the mainstream media.

In this case, a jury has decided that Lee has over-stepped the blurry border between opinion and defamation. Even if Lee can shrug off the $104,000 (plus costs) financial penalty it must have hurt the ego a little.

But has the decision stifled the atmosphere for 'frank and open' public debate about the merits of particular investment offerings? Possibly.

Lee will soon be governed by new regulations about to be imposed on the financial advisory sector, which he also rankles against. In his submission to the committee writing the Code of Professional Conduct for authorised financial advisers (AFAs), Lee took exception to the proposed rule that: "An AFA must not do anything that would bring the AFA, or financial advisers generally, into disrepute."

Lee asked whether the rule meant "AFAs must not criticise their industry, or practices with which they disagree?".

"The industry should not fear strong public debate on contentious matters; nor should the regulator... There must be a better way of discouraging boorish behaviour, as opposed to criticism or debate," he says in the submission.

Like a defamation case, for example.



David Chaplin