Craig v Stiekema - [2018] NZHC 838

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-1790

[2018] NZHC 838

UNDER Section 124 of the District Court Act 2016

BETWEEN

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Appellant

AND

JACQUELINE STIEKEMA

Respondent

Hearing: 23 November 2017

Counsel:

LC Bercovitch and J Marcetic for appellant AJ Romanos for respondent

Judgment:

27 April 2018

JUDGMENT OF FITZGERALD J

This judgment was delivered by me on 27 April 2018, at 4 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

Solicitors: Chapman Tripp, Wellington
Langford Law, Wellington

Craig v Stiekema [2018] NZHC 838 [27 April 2018]

Introduction

[1] Colin Craig sues a former employee, Jacqueline Stiekema, for what he says are defamatory publications made by her about him. The claim was originally brought in the High Court, but was later transferred to the District Court. In July 2017, the District Court Judge struck out Mr Craig’s claim in its entirety.1

[2] Mr Craig now appeals that decision. He argues the Judge erred in two principal respects in striking out his claim:

(a)First, in striking out the claim on the basis of “the Jameel principle”. Under this principle, a prima facie actionable claim may be struck out as an abuse of process, because the harm allegedly involved, the damages likely to be awarded and/or the vindication likely to be achieved will be minimal, even if the claim were successful.2 Mr Craig says his claim falls well outside the principles discussed in Jameel.

(b)Secondly, the District Court Judge made findings of fact on the basis of contested affidavit evidence, when to do so is inappropriate on a strike- out application.

[3]Ms Stiekema supports the District Court judgment and opposes the appeal.

Background

[4] Mr Craig and Ms Stiekema were formerly colleagues. From 2003 to 2007, Ms Stiekema worked for a company operated by Mr Craig. An employment dispute arose between the parties after Ms Stiekema’s resignation, which was resolved by the Employment Relations Authority in 2007.

1 Craig v Stiekema [2017] NZDC 15914.
2 A reference to the principles established in Jameel v Dow Jones & Co Inc [2005] EWCA Civ 75, [2005] QB 946, as summarised by France J in X v Attorney General (No 2) [2017] NZHC 1136, [2017] NZAR 1365 at [12]. This is discussed further below.

[5] The statements giving rise to Mr Craig’s defamation claim occurred in or around September 2015. There are three causes of action, each relating to an alleged defamatory publication. The total quantum of damages sought is $240,000 plus costs.

[6] Mr Craig’s first cause of action relates to an interaction between Ms Stiekema and Mr John Stringer on Facebook. Mr Stringer is a former board member of the Conservative Party, a political party formerly led by Mr Craig. On 3 September 2015, Ms Stiekema and Mr Stringer engaged in the following dialogue on Mr Stringer’s Facebook page:

MsStiekema: We support you John – you are one of the very…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Craig v Stiekema and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2018] NZHC 838
Decision Date: 27 April 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Craig v Stiekema involved an appeal by Colin Craig against a decision by the District Court to strike out his defamation claim against Jacqueline Stiekema. The District Court had struck out the claim on the basis of the Jameel principle, which allows for the dismissal of a defamation claim if the harm involved, the damages likely to be awarded, and the vindication likely to be achieved are minimal, even if the claim were successful. Mr Craig argued that the District Court had erred in applying the Jameel principle and in making findings of fact on contested evidence. Ms Stiekema opposed the appeal and argued that the strike-out decision should be upheld.

The court found that the District Court had erred in striking out the second and third causes of action, which related to serious allegations of fraud and other misconduct. The court held that the District Court should not have considered the likelihood of Mr Craig proving authorship of the statements in question, as the burden was not on him to do so on a strike-out application. The court also rejected Ms Stiekema's argument that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as the defamatory statements were serious and the vindication Mr Craig had already received from a previous proceeding did not cover the allegations in the second and third causes of action.

The court allowed the appeal and quashed the District Court's order striking out the claim in its entirety. The court emphasised that the result on the appeal was not necessarily a reflection of the merits of the underlying claim and urged the parties to consider the most efficient means of resolving the matters in issue. The court also noted the high bar for a strike-out application and the cautious approach to be taken when applying the Jameel principle.

Orders