Craig v Slater - [2019] NZHC 1269

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-1923

[2019] NZHC 1269

IN THE MATTER of the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER

First Defendant

AND

SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Second Defendant

On the papers

Appearances:

CG Craig, representing himself, support by TF Cleary as McKenzie Friend

BP Henry and CSL Foster for the Defendant

Judgment:

6 June 2019

COSTS JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 6 June 2019 at 3.45 pm Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CRAIG v SLATER [2019] NZHC 1269 [6 June 2019]

Introduction

[1] Mr Colin Craig brought a defamation claim against Mr Cameron Slater and his company, Social Media Consultants Limited (SMCL); Mr Slater then counterclaimed.

[2] On 19 October 2018, I delivered a judgment determining Mr Craig’s claims and Mr Slater’s counterclaim.1 The parties have been unable to agree about costs and each has applied for orders in their favour.

[3] The defendants approach the costs issue without making any distinction between their positions. SMCL is a closely held private company that was the corporate vehicle for Mr Slater’s journalistic endeavours. Prominently for the purposes of this case, it was the publisher of the internet blog site “Whale Oil Beef Hooked” (Whaleoil) on which the majority of Mr Slater’s statements giving rise to the proceeding were posted. It was the sole defendant on one of the causes of action brought by Mr Craig. The other causes of action were against Mr Slater alone or jointly with the SMCL. Only Mr Slater counterclaimed. The company and Mr Slater were represented jointly by Mr Henry and Ms Foster throughout. It is convenient, therefore, to refer to Mr Slater’s position as representing the interests and submissions of both defendants.

Summary of the pleadings

[4] The proceeding concerned the publication in June and July 2015 of allegations about the conduct of Mr Craig, the then Leader of the Conservative Party, and his relationship with his then press secretary, Rachel MacGregor, through radio broadcasting and internet websites. Mr Craig alleged that he suffered serious damage to his reputation as a consequence of allegedly untrue statements published by Mr Slater and SMCL, primarily on Whaleoil.

[5] Mr Craig stepped down as Conservative Party leader on 19 June 2015. On 29 July 2015, in response to the allegedly defamatory statements, Mr Craig published a booklet entitled Dirty Politics and Hidden Agendas which he distributed to

1 Craig v Slater [2018] NZHC 2712.

1.6 million New Zealand homes. Mr Slater counterclaimed for allegedly defamatory statements made in the booklet.

[6] Because none of the parties was wholly successful in proving or defending the various claims and counterclaims alleged, it is necessary to summarise the allegations and the findings related to them

Mr Craig’s claims

[7] Mr Craig pleaded that the allegations published on different occasions over a six-week period carried the meanings or imputations that he:

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 [2019] NZHC 1269
Case: [2019] NZHC 1269
Decision Date: 6 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Colin Graeme Craig brought a defamation claim against Cameron John Slater and his company, Social Media Consultants Limited, while Slater counterclaimed. The defendants' position was that the allegations were either true or protected by responsible communication on matters of public interest. Craig argued that Slater and SMCL defamed him by publishing untrue statements that caused damage to his reputation. Slater counterclaimed for statements made in a booklet published by Craig. The court determined that Slater and SMCL were liable to Craig in defamation for two claims, but Craig was not entitled to damages for those claims or for aggravated and pecuniary damages. Slater's counterclaim was dismissed. The court held that Slater was successful in the counterclaim to a significant degree, but Craig was successful in defending the counterclaim on the basis of qualified privilege. The court concluded that the proceeding required special skill and experience, but the complexity and significance of the proceeding did not justify categorisation as a 3C proceeding. The court awarded Slater costs on a 3B basis, with deductions for limited success and difficulty in identifying the proportion of trial time occupied by the counterclaim.

Orders