Craig v MacGregor - [2019] NZHC 2247

REDACTED VERSION OF JUDGMENT SUITABLE FOR PUBLICATION

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2016-404-002915

[2019] NZHC 2247

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

RACHEL MARGARET JOY MACGREGOR

Defendant

Hearing:
24-28 September 2018, 1, 2, 4 and 5 October 2018, 8 April 2019 (by telephone)

Further submissions received: Defendant: 31 October 2018; Plaintiff: 1 November 2018; Defendant: 8 February 2019;

Plaintiff: 19 February 2019; Plaintiff: 26 February 2019; 8 April
2019; 26 April 2019; Defendant: 7 May 2019

Appearances:

The Plaintiff in Person (T F Cleary as McKenzie Friend) H Wilson and L Clark for the Defendant

Judgment:

6 September 2019

JUDGMENT OF HINTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 September 2019 at 5.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

…………………………………………………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors:
Kensington Swan, Wellington

Party:
C Craig

CRAIG v MACGREGOR [2019] NZHC 2247 [6 September 2019]

TABLE OF CONTENTS

An overview [1]

Effect of judgment in Craig v Slater [8]

Factual background [19]

August 2011 – November 2011 and the first Craig letter  [19]
The November 2011 election night incident  [24]
December 2011 – January 2012  [26]
The second Craig letter – 7 February 2012  [31]
May 2012 – first employment review  [38]

August 2012 – September 2012 – second employment review and agreement regarding campaign rate  [41]
October 2012 – third Craig letter  [45]
December 2012 – gold charm present – Ms MacGregor’s card/letter                 [46] December 2013 – the fourth Craig letter and MacGregor card  [51] January 2014 – August 2014 – employment issue  [58]
September 2014 and the 18 September resignation  [67]
September 2014 – after Ms MacGregor’s resignation  [79] 19 November 2014 – Ms MacGregor’s meeting with Mr Williams – Mr Craig’s first cause of action     [82]
December 2014 – January 2015  [86]
Lawyers’ correspondence regarding sexual harassment complaint  [94] Human Rights Commission mediation and confidential settlement  [99] Craigs’ first joint press conference 22 June 2015 – Ms MacGregor’s first cause of action [125]
Ms MacGregor’s press statement 22 June 2015 – Mr Craig’s second cause of action       [126]
Ms MacGregor’s Twitter statement 22 June 2015 – Mr Craig’s third cause of action       [127]
The Craigs’ joint letter to the Conservative Party – Ms MacGregor’s second cause of action  [129]
The Craigs’ second joint press conference 29 July 2015 – Ms MacGregor’s third cause of action  [135]
The Craigs’ joint “Dirty Politics” booklet 29 July 2015 – Ms MacGregor’s fourth cause of action  [136]
Subsequent to 29 July 2015  [137]

The legal framework [142]

Truth [145]

Honest opinion [147]
Qualified privilege – general [148]

Professional advice [152]

Reply to attack [153]

Public interest [154]

Mr Craig’s first cause of action – Ms MacGregor’s statements to Mr Williams on 19 November 2014 [159]

Did Ms MacGregor publish the statements? [161]
Were the statements about Mr Craig? [165]
Did the statements carry the pleaded imputations and are they defamatory? [166]

Does the defence of truth apply – in…

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 [2019] NZHC 2247
Case: [2019] NZHC 2247
Decision Date: 6 September 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case, Craig v MacGregor, involves defamation proceedings stemming from the collapse of the Conservative Party following the 2014 election. The proceedings are between Mr Craig, the leader of the party, and Ms MacGregor, his former press secretary. The case was initiated by Mr Craig in November 2016, but he did not serve the proceedings until Ms MacGregor filed a statement of defence and counter-claim. The case has proceeded with Mr Craig's claim for a declaration and Ms MacGregor's claim for damages. The court found that Ms MacGregor defamed Mr Craig by suggesting he was a bad employer, cruel, nasty or unfair toward others, and caused a young woman to commit suicide. However, the defence of truth applied to the allegation that Mr Craig sexually harassed Ms MacGregor. On the other hand, Mr Craig defamed Ms MacGregor by suggesting she made false claims of sexual harassment, was a liar, and had victimised him and his wife. The court made declarations accordingly and reserved the issue of costs for further consideration. The parties were asked to file a joint memorandum setting out an agreed timetable.

Orders