The central issue on this appeal is whether the High Court was correct to stay the present defamation proceedings indefinitely on the basis that their pursuit would be oppressive to a prospective witness and therefore an abuse of process of the Court.[1] The witness had already given evidence three times on the same topic in other defamation proceedings involving different parties (the other defamation proceedings) and Palmer J considered it would be oppressive to require her to do so again.[2]
The present defamation proceedings comprise a proceeding by Colin Craig against John Stringer[3] and a proceeding by Mr Stringer against Mr Craig and the other four appellants.[4] These separate proceedings were filed in September and October 2015 and were due to be heard together at a trial commencing in August 2019. However, on 17 June 2019, two months prior to the scheduled trial date, the High Court, of its own motion, made an order staying indefinitely Mr Craig’s claim against Mr Stringer and part of Mr Stringer’s claim against Mr Craig and the other appellants.[5] This meant that the time, effort and cost expended by Mr Craig over a four-year period to prepare his claim for trial were all for nothing.
[3]Craig v Stringer CIV-2015-409-575.
[4]Stringer v Craig CIV-2015-404-2524.
[5]High Court judgment, above n 1, at [67(b)]–[67(c)].
Although no question of issue estoppel or res judicata arose out of the other defamation proceedings, and no one other than Mr Craig had sought consolidation of any of the proceedings, the Judge concluded that Mr Craig’s continued pursuit of his claim against Mr Stringer was an abuse of the process of the Court.[6] The Judge considered it would be “inequitable” to stay Mr Craig’s claim and not Mr Stringer’s, so he stayed Mr Stringer’s claim as well to the extent it would require the same prospective witness to give evidence again.[7]
Factual background
[6]At [31].
[7]At [36].
Mr Craig was…
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 Stringer
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260
Case
[2020] NZCA 260
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Court of Appeal of New Zealand was asked to determine whether the High Court was correct to indefinitely stay defamation proceedings brought by Colin Graeme Craig against John Charles Stringer. The Court of Appeal found that the High Court's decision to stay the proceedings was incorrect and set aside the order for stay. The Court held that Mr Craig was entitled to pursue his claim against Mr Stringer, and that there was no basis for staying the proceedings as an abuse of the Court's process. The Court also found that sections 46-48 of the Defamation Act 1992 did not apply in this case. The appeal was allowed, and the order for stay was set aside. The respondent was ordered to pay costs to the appellants for a standard appeal on a band A basis and usual disbursements.