Craig v Stiekema - [2017] NZHC 614

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

CIV-2015-404-2882 [2017] NZHC 614

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG Plaintiff

AND

JACQUELINE STIEKEMA Defendant

Hearing: 29 March 2017

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person
P A McKnight for Defendant

Judgment:

29 March 2017

ORAL JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE R M BELL

Solicitors:
Langford Law (J A Langford), Wellington, for Defendant

Counsel:
P A McKnight & A J Romanos, Wellington, for Defendant

Copy for:
Colin Graeme Craig, Albany, Auckland.

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG v JACQUELINE STIEKEMA [2017] NZHC 614 [29 March 2017]

[1] Mr Craig is suing Ms Stiekema in defamation. Mr Craig is not legally represented. At the outset of the proceeding Ms Stiekema did not have legal representation either. Happily she has now instructed counsel. I am grateful for Mr McKnight’s participation.

[2] Mr Craig’s statement of claim has three causes of action. The first alleges defamatory publication in a Facebook page; the second and third go to publications by Ms Stiekema to a Mr Stringer. In each cause of action Mr Craig seeks general damages of $50,000 and aggravated damages of $30,000 so that the total amount of his claim comes to $240,000. When he began the proceeding in
2015 the jurisdiction of the District Court was limited to $200,000. Since then, the District Court Act 2016 has come into force and the jurisdiction of the District Court has been increased to $350,000. Mr Craig has applied to transfer this proceeding to the District Court now that the amount of his claim is within the jurisdiction of that court.

[3] At the same time, Ms Stiekema has given a notice under r 7.16 of the High Court Rules requiring trial by jury. Under the Senior Courts Act 2016, a right to trial by jury is reserved for defamation proceedings, subject to the court’s power to order otherwise in certain cases of complexity.1 Those are cases involving difficult questions of law and ones that involve prolonged examination of documents or require matters of specialist expertise.2

[4] This conference was held to give case management directions. The transfer question needs to be decided first before any directions can be given for Ms Stiekema’s strike-out application. Clearly, if the case is not to stay in this court it is inappropriate to deal with any strike-out applications here. Forum
needs to be decided first.

1 Senior Courts Act 2016, s 16.
2 Senior Courts Act, s 16(4).

[5] At the start of the conference I asked Mr Craig and Mr McKnight whether they were prepared to address me on the transfer question. Both of them were willing to deal with the matter in the conference. I heard submissions from them both.

[6] The provision for transfer from the High Court to the District Court is s 94 of the District Court Act 2016. That is in the same terms as s 46 of the District Courts Act 1947. I am dealing with the matter under s 94(1) because Mr Craig has…

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: [2017] NZHC 614
Decision Date: 29 March 2017

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Craig v Stiekema, the plaintiff, Colin Graeme Craig, sued the defendant, Jacqueline Stiekema, for defamation. The plaintiff sought damages of $240,000, claiming that the defendant had published defamatory statements on Facebook and to a third party. The defendant initially appeared unrepresented but later obtained legal counsel. Craig applied to transfer the case from the High Court to the District Court, as the District Court's jurisdiction had been increased to $350,000 under the District Court Act 2016. The defendant objected to the transfer, arguing that the case should remain in the High Court due to its complexity and the right to a jury trial under the Senior Courts Act 2016.

The court had to determine whether the case should be transferred to the District Court or remain in the High Court. The court considered several factors, including the nature and complexity of the case, the public importance, the amount in issue, the likely length of the hearing, and the financial resources of the parties. The court also considered the differences in appeal pathways between the District Court and the High Court. The court found that the case was not particularly complex and that defamation proceedings were suitable for hearing in the District Court. However, the court noted that if the case remained in the High Court, it would likely require a jury trial, which would result in longer hearing times and potentially greater delay in trial allocation.

The court concluded that the case should be transferred to the District Court as it was within the jurisdiction of that court, and it would be disproportionate to require a jury to decide the case. The court ordered the transfer and did not make an order for costs as Craig did not have legal representation.

Orders