Craig v MacGregor - [2018] NZHC 1172

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2016-404-2915

[2018] NZHC 1172

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

RACHEL MARGARET JOY MACGREGOR

Defendant

Hearing: 20 April 2018

Appearances:

Mr Craig in Person

H Wilson for Defendant

Judgment:

23 May 2018

JUDGMENT OF DUFFY J

This judgment was delivered by me on 23 May 2018 at 3.00 pm pursuant to
Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/ Deputy Registrar

Solicitors/Counsel: Kensington Swan, Wellington

CRAIG v MACGREGOR [2018] NZHC 1172 [23 May 2018]

[1] The plaintiff, Colin Craig, brings three causes of action against the defendant, Rachel MacGregor, each of which alleges that comments she has made to others about Mr Craig were defamatory.

[2] The first cause of action relates to comments Ms MacGregor allegedly published to Jordan Williams, all of which either jointly or severally essentially suggest that Mr Craig had been sexually harassing Ms MacGregor by making unwelcome advances towards her and attempts at contacting her. Mr Craig pleads as matters of aggravation that insofar as Ms MacGregor published comments and copies of communications between her and Mr Craig to Mr Williams, she selected material that would support her claims of sexual harassment. Further, this selection distorted the true import of the communications she forwarded to Mr Williams. In addition, she held back from Mr Williams other material exchanged between her and Mr Craig that was either inconsistent with or undermined her claim of sexual harassment.

[3] The second cause of action in defamation relates to Ms MacGregor issuing a media release in response to a press conference held by Mr Craig and his wife in which he denied sexually harassing Ms MacGregor. The press conference and media release followed confidential settlements which Mr Craig reached with Ms MacGregor. Mr Craig alleges defamation by innuendo through Ms MacGregor saying on the media release that the agreement prevented her from correcting “factual inaccuracies” in his statements to the press conference.

[4] The third cause of action arises from Twitter statements Ms MacGregor made in which she said, “Colin Craig is trying to frame me as his mistress. There was never a sexual relationship, nor was there consent for his inappropriate actions.”

[5] By way of defence, Ms MacGregor admits she made the statements in respect of the first cause of action and alleges they are based on truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. Regarding the second cause of action she admits she issued the media statement and its contents and alleges the words in that statement are based on truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. She takes the same approach in relation to the third cause of action.

[6] There is also a counterclaim which Ms MacGregor brings against Mr Craig alleging that he defamed her by saying she had brought a false claim of sexual harassment against him and that she was a liar.

[7] Mr Craig and Ms MacGregor were involved in a political party known…

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 [2018] NZHC 1172
Case: [2018] NZHC 1172
Decision Date: 23 May 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Craig v MacGregor involved a defamation claim brought by Colin Craig against Rachel MacGregor. The plaintiff sought to establish that comments made by the defendant were defamatory, including allegations of sexual harassment, and that she issued a media release containing defamatory innuendos. The defendant defended by claiming the statements were based on truth, honest opinion, and qualified privilege. There was also a counterclaim by the defendant alleging that the plaintiff defamed her. The plaintiff sought non-party discovery of communications between the defendant and Stephen Taylor, a professional counsellor, on the basis that they may contain relevant information. The defendant opposed the application on the grounds that the material sought was not relevant to the proceedings and was protected from disclosure under section 69 of the Evidence Act 2006. The court found that the application for non-party discovery was a fishing exercise and dismissed the application. The court could not determine the relevance of the material sought as it had no idea about its content. The court also found that the second ground of opposition was not established because it did not have enough information about the subject material to determine if it was confidential and protected from disclosure. The court dismissed the application for non-party discovery and reserved leave to the parties to file memoranda on costs if they could not agree.
This case highlights the importance of providing sufficient information when seeking non-party discovery. The court found that the plaintiff's application was a fishing exercise because it did not provide enough information about the content of the material sought. The court also found that the defendant's opposition on the grounds of relevance and confidentiality was not established because it did not have enough information about the subject material. This case serves as a reminder to parties to provide sufficient information when seeking non-party discovery to enable the court to determine whether the material sought is relevant and not protected from disclosure.

Orders