Legal Research
Cases
Craig v Slater

Craig v Slater

Case [2021] NZHC 30 27 January 2021

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-001923

[2021] NZHC 30

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER

First Defendant

SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 9 November 2020

Appearances:

C G Craig (Self-represented Plaintiff) in Person No Appearance of, or for Defendants

Judgment:

27 January 2021

JUDGMENT OF EDWARDS J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 January 2021 at 4.00 pm pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

To: C G Craig, Auckland

CRAIG v SLATER [2021] NZHC 30 [27 January 2021]

[1] Mr Slater and his company, Social Media Consultants Ltd (in liq) (SMC), were found by the High Court and the Court of Appeal to have defamed Mr Craig through ten publications.1 Other claims of defamation were dismissed. The Court of Appeal directed damages and costs to be assessed in this Court.2

[2] Mr Craig seeks compensatory, aggravated and punitive damages in the sum of at least $500,000. He seeks costs, being disbursements he incurred as a self- represented litigant, of approximately $158,000. The awards are unlikely to be satisfied as Mr Slater is now bankrupt and his company is in liquidation.3 Neither defendant appeared at the hearing.

[3] As the High Court Judge (Toogood J) who heard the substantive claim has since retired, it falls to me to determine the quantum of the damages and costs awards.

A brief background

[4] The background is set out in detail in the High Court judgment and summarised in the Court of Appeal judgment.4 That means I may be brief.

[5] Mr Craig is a businessman. He is also the founder of the Conservative Party, which contested the 2011, 2014 and 2017 general elections. He was the party’s leader until 2015.

[6] Ms MacGregor was employed as the party’s Press Secretary shortly after it was founded in 2011. She resigned in September 2014, just days before the general election. Following her resignation, Ms MacGregor accused Mr Craig of sexual harassment. Those claims and others were subsequently settled at a mediation.

1      Craig v Slater [2018] NZHC 2712 [High Court judgment]; and Craig v Slater [2020] NZCA 305 [Court of Appeal judgment].
2      Court of Appeal judgment, above n 1, at [134]–[135].
3      The Official Assignee consents to the continuation of this proceeding. The liquidator abides the decision of the Court and does not oppose the proceeding continuing. For the avoidance of doubt, and pursuant to s 248(1)(c) Companies Act 1993, I order that legal proceedings may continue against SMC.
4      High Court judgment, above n 1, at [1]–[16]; and Court of Appeal judgment, above n 1, at [1]– [8].

[7] The allegations of sexual harassment were leaked to Mr Slater. From 19 June 2015 until 29 July 2015, Mr Slater made various statements about Mr Craig which were published on the Whaleoil blog site, NewsTalk ZB and the One News Now website.

[8]…

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 Slater

Details

AGLC: Craig v Slater [2021] NZHC 30
Case: [2021] NZHC 30
Decision Date: 27 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Craig v Slater involved a defamation action brought by Colin Graeme Craig against Cameron John Slater and his company, Social Media Consultants Limited (SMC). Mr Craig sought compensatory, aggravated, and punitive damages for various defamatory statements made by Mr Slater, which were published on the Whaleoil blog site, NewsTalk ZB, and the One News Now website. The Court of Appeal had previously found Mr Slater liable for ten defamatory publications and remitted the matter to the High Court for the assessment of damages and costs.

The High Court, presided over by Edwards J, considered the nature and extent of the defamatory statements, the impact on Mr Craig's reputation, and relevant precedent cases. The Court found that the defamatory statements targeted Mr Craig's personal sexual morality, professional character, and personal integrity. The Court held that while Mr Craig's reputation was already somewhat tarnished prior to the first defamatory publication, the statements still caused injury to his reputation, warranting compensation.

The Court awarded Mr Craig $325,000 in damages, comprising both general and aggravated damages. Mr Slater was held solely liable for $80,000 of this sum, with the defendants being jointly and severally liable for the remaining balance. The Court declined to award punitive damages, finding the conduct of Mr Slater did not warrant punishment.

Regarding costs, Mr Craig was awarded disbursements in the sum of $95,000 against the defendants jointly and severally. The Court reduced the quantum of the costs award by approximately 40% to reflect Mr Craig's failure on the primary planks of his claim regarding his alleged conduct towards Ms MacGregor and the Conservative Party board.

Orders