Legal Research
Cases
Craig v Slater

Craig v Slater

Case [2017] NZHC 735 12 April 2017

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-1923 [2017] NZHC 735

IN THE MATTER of the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG Plaintiff

AND

CAMERON JOHN SLATER Defendant

AND

SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LIMITED

Second Defendant

Hearing: 7 April 2017 (further submissions, 12 April 2017

Appearances:

CG Craig, representing himself
BP Henry and C Foster for Defendant

Judgment:

12 April 2017

JUDGMENT OF TOOGOOD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 12 April 2017 at 4.30 pm
Pursuant to Rule 11.5 High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Background

[1] Mr Colin Craig is the plaintiff in defamation proceedings against the first defendant, Mr Cameron Slater, and the second defendant, Social Media Consultants Limited (SMC) (together, the publishers of the Whale Oil blog). Mr Slater counterclaims in defamation.

[2] During the 2014 general election campaign, Mr Craig was leader of the Conservative Party and a parliamentary candidate. Shortly before the election, his press secretary, Rachel MacGregor, resigned. Ms MacGregor subsequently made a complaint that she had been sexually harassed by Mr Craig. Sexual harassment proceedings before the Human Rights Review Tribunal between Ms MacGregor and Mr Craig were settled in May 2015. As a result of public controversy about Mr Craig’s relationship with Ms MacGregor and the reasons for her resignation, members of the board of the Conservative Party raised questions about Mr Craig’s continued leadership of the party. In June 2015, Mr Craig resigned as leader. He made public statements about the matter, including at press conferences on 22 June
2015 and 29 July 2015 and in a booklet which was distributed to members of the public. The publications contained allegations about Mr Slater’s and Whale Oil’s involvement in a campaign to force Mr Craig’s resignation as party leader. In June and July 2015, Mr Slater made numerous statements on radio and television, and in blog posts on the Whale Oil blogsite, about Mr Craig’s relationship with Ms McGregor; the settlement of the sexual harassment proceedings; Mr Craig’s resignation and related matters.

[3] The proceeding concerns allegedly defamatory statements published by Mr Slater and SMC about Mr Craig, and by Mr Craig about Mr Slater. In defence of Mr Craig’s claims, Mr Slater and SMC plead denials of allegedly defamatory meanings and the affirmative defences of truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. Mr Craig pleads similar defences in response to the counterclaim.

[4] Mr Slater gave timely notice under s 19A(2) of the Judicature Act 1908 requiring that the trial be held before a judge and jury. This judgment addresses an

application by Mr Craig seeking an order under s 19A(5) of the Act that the case be tried before a Judge without a jury.1

[5] The application has come very late. Jurors have been summoned for the trial, which is scheduled to occupy three weeks, beginning on 8 May 2017. It is essential that the parties and the Court registry know as soon as possible how the trial is to proceed.

Result

[6] I have decided that…

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 [2017] NZHC 735
Case: [2017] NZHC 735
Decision Date: 12 April 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Craig v Slater, the High Court of New Zealand considered an application by Colin Graeme Craig for a defamation trial against Cameron Slater and Social Media Consultants Limited, the publishers of the Whale Oil blog, to be tried by a judge without a jury. The dispute involved allegations of defamatory statements published by Slater and Craig about each other during the 2014 general election campaign. Slater and Social Media Consultants Limited pleaded denials and the defences of truth, honest opinion, and qualified privilege, while Craig pleaded similar defences in response to Slater's counterclaim.

The court had to decide whether the trial should proceed before a judge and jury or a judge alone. Craig's application was made under s 19A(5) of the Judicature Act 1908, which permits the judge to order a trial without a jury if it will mainly involve the consideration of difficult questions of law or any prolonged examination of documents or accounts, or any investigation in which difficult questions are likely to arise in relation to technical, business, or professional matters, being an examination or investigation which cannot conveniently be made with a jury.

The court found that the trial would involve the consideration of difficult questions of law concerning the defences of qualified privilege, which may cause difficulty for the judge and the jury in the discharge of their respective functions. Additionally, the case involved a prolonged examination of many documents and factual issues, which could not conveniently be made with a jury. Therefore, the court ordered that the proceeding be tried before a judge without a jury, commencing on Monday, 8 May 2017 at 10.00 am.

Orders