Craig v MacGregor - [2021] NZSC 112

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI MANA NUI

SC 61/2021
[2021] NZSC 112

BETWEEN	COLIN GRAEME CRAIG Applicant
AND	RACHEL JOY MACGREGOR Respondent

Court:	O’Regan, Ellen France and Williams JJ
Counsel:	S J Mills QC, J W J Graham and T F Cleary for Applicant H J P Wilson, L Clark and B A Mathers for Respondent
Judgment:	9 September 2021

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

A The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

B The applicant must pay the respondent costs of $2,500.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS

Introduction

Mr Craig, the applicant, seeks leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1] The Court of Appeal dismissed Mr Craig’s appeal against a decision of the High Court ruling, relevantly, that Mr Craig was liable in damages to Ms MacGregor, the respondent, for defamation.[2]

Background

[1]Craig v MacGregor [2021] NZCA 156 (Kós P, Clifford and Collins JJ) [CA judgment].

[2]Craig v MacGregor [2019] NZHC 2247 (Hinton J) [HC judgment].

The present application arises out of the fall‑out from the collapse of the Conservative Party after the 2014 general election. Mr Craig was the leader of the Conservative Party and Ms MacGregor was his press secretary. Ms MacGregor resigned suddenly from her position as press secretary just before the 2014 election. She also filed a claim of sexual harassment by Mr Craig under the Human Rights Act 1993. This claim was ultimately settled. For present purposes, we only need note that Ms MacGregor’s allegations of sexual harassment were subsequently publicised and that Mr Craig responded to the various publications, making statements in various fora, including a press conference in July 2015 and a leaflet which was delivered nationwide.
This set of facts has given rise to a number of other proceedings.[3] To put the present application in context, we need refer only to one of these proceedings, aspects of which were considered by this Court in Craig v Williams.[4] That case concerned an action for defamation brought against Mr Craig by Jordan Williams, a former supporter of the Conservative Party, in whom Ms MacGregor had confided. One of the issues in this Court was whether Mr Craig used an occasion the subject of privilege for an improper purpose, because he had known that the allegations of sexual harassment were true and therefore had no belief in the statements he made to respond to them.
[3]The Court of Appeal sets out a brief chronology at [12] of its judgment, above n 1.
[4]Craig v Williams [2019] NZSC 38, [2019] 1 NZLR 457.
The current proceeding began as a claim brought by Mr Craig against Ms MacGregor, to which she filed a defence and a counter‑claim. But what remains is, effectively, Ms MacGregor’s claim for damages for defamation. In terms of that claim, the relevant assertions can be described very generally as assertions by Mr Craig that Ms MacGregor had made false claims of sexual harassment against him and was a liar.[5] The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Craig v MacGregor

Details

AGLC: Craig v MacGregor [2021] NZSC 112
Case: [2021] NZSC 112
Decision Date: 9 September 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Supreme Court of New Zealand dismissed an application for leave to appeal from Colin Graeme Craig against a decision of the Court of Appeal, which had ruled that Craig was liable in damages to Rachel Joy MacGregor for defamation. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed Craig's appeal against a High Court decision that found him liable for defamation. Craig, the leader of the Conservative Party, had responded to allegations of sexual harassment made by MacGregor, his former press secretary, by making public statements and delivering a leaflet nationwide. These statements were the subject of MacGregor's defamation claim, which focused on assertions that she had made false claims of sexual harassment against Craig and was a liar. The primary issue before the Court was whether the High Court and Court of Appeal had correctly rejected Craig's defence of qualified privilege, which he invoked by asserting a right to reply to an attack. The Supreme Court held that the appeal did not raise any questions of general or public importance and that there was no appearance of a miscarriage of justice. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, and Craig was ordered to pay MacGregor's costs of $2,500.

Orders