A stunning spectacle of cherry blossoms was abruptly replaced with bitter controversy when Anne Cao and Paul Oulton cancelled their highly-anticipated festival at the last minute. The couple has blamed negative media coverage for the wave of public backlash that ensued, including a potent mix of frustration, anger and even a chilling death threat.
However, legal counsel for Stuff, the media outlet facing defamation charges from the couple, argues that the roots of the public’s discontent are buried deeply within Cao and Oulton’s own missteps. These include failure to secure resource consent in a timely manner, abrupt cancellation of the entire event, careless communication promising partial refunds to ticketholders, plus a subsequent decision to liquidate.
Cao and Oulton assert that Stuff’s coverage portrayed them as disorganised and fraudulent miscreants rather than the victims of circumstantial adversity. They claim that the reportage irreparably damaged their reputation which had once bloomed as vibrantly as the cherry blossoms they had so lovingly grown.
Throughout the trial, it emerged that the couple did receive warnings from the Waikato District Council regarding the necessity of resource consent for such a large-scale event. Despite these clear indications, they continued to sell festival tickets, operating under a ticking clock as the crucial opening date in September neared closer.
Building on prior success, they had anticipated up to 12,000 attendees over the course of the 10-day festival. However, lacking the crucial resource consent, they were permitted to host only a thousand attendees per day. This provision had been sufficient in the past but would now prove to be a formidable obstacle.
While the couple struggled to meet the council’s requirements regarding traffic management details and facility provisions, a group of 23 neighbours lodged a protest against the festival, adding another layer of complications. Ultimately, the strain became too much and Cao and Oulton decided to cancel the event altogether, citing difficulties in managing potential penalties for exceeding the one thousand visitors limit.
Despite the tumultuous path leading to its conclusion, the duo was swift to promise partial refunds to disappointed event-goers – a promise which only stoked the flames of ire by those who felt cheated. Robert Stewart, representing Stuff, argues that the hurt to their reputation was self-inflicted, and primary reasons being the denied resource consent, the late cancellation of the event, the contentious messaging about refunds, and the liquidation of the company.
Though Cao and Oulton did manage to repay ticketholders after borrowing funds, public sentiment towards them had cooled considerably. The trial remains ongoing with new developments expected to unfold as it resumes on the following week.
