Craig v Stringer - [2016] NZHC 1956

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000575 [2016] NZHC 1956

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN STRINGER Defendant

Hearing: 15 August 2016

Appearances:

Mr C G Craig (Plaintiff) in person
Mr J Stringer (Defendant) in person

Judgment:

22 August 2016

AMENDED JUDGMENT (REISSUED: 25 AUGUST 2016) OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE MATTHEWS

[1] Mr Craig sues Mr Stringer in defamation. His current pleading is an amended statement of claim dated 31 May 2016, filed on 8 June 2016. Mr Stringer filed a statement of defence to the original statement of claim, and subsequently an amended statement of defence to the same pleading. He is yet to plead to the amended statement of claim.

[2] There are six interlocutory applications before the Court and these are determined by this judgment. They are:

(a) Application by Mr Stringer for further and better discovery.

(b)Application by Mr Craig for further and better discovery, and in relation to inspection.

(c) Application by Mr Craig for non-party discovery by Social Media

Consultants Limited (SMC).

CRAIG v STRINGER [2016] NZHC 1956 [22 August 2016]

(d)Application by Mr Craig for leave to add additional causes of action and to file a second amended statement of claim.

(e) Application by Mr Craig for leave to serve further interrogatories. (f) Application by Mr Craig to strike out Mr Stringer’s defence.

Application by Mr Stringer for further and better discovery

[3] Mr Craig is the former leader of the Conservative Party which participated in the general election in 2014. Mr Stringer is a former member of the Board of the Conservative Party. Mr Craig says, in his amended statement of claim, that in June, July and August 2015 Mr Stringer defamed him in what he describes as a relentless succession of publications in various media.

[4] By inference from the pleadings, serious altercations arose between Mr Craig and Mr Stringer, and between Mr Craig and other members of the Board of the Conservative Party, in mid-2015. It seems that at least some of these altercations had their genesis in Mr Craig’s association with his former press secretary, Ms Rachel MacGregor. One issue which arose from the disquiet within the Conservative Party was whether Mr Craig should remain as its leader. While this issue was under consideration Mr Craig decided to send out a form of ballot paper to members of the Conservative Party, by which those members who received it were asked to tick one of two boxes, the first reading “Colin Please Continue” and the other reading “Colin Time to Give it Away”. The former was set out under the word “Yes”, next to which was a diagram of a hand with a raised thumb. The latter was set out under the word “No”, accompanied by a diagram of a hand with a thumb pointing downwards.

[5] Mr Craig alleges that Mr Stringer made various defamatory comments about him in relation to his taking this step. As I understand it, the essence of Mr Craig’s complaint is…

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

Details

AGLC: Craig v Stringer [2016] NZHC 1956
Case: [2016] NZHC 1956
Decision Date: 22 August 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Craig v Stringer the plaintiff Craig sued the defendant Stringer for defamation. Craig brought several interlocutory applications in relation to the case. Stringer filed a statement of defence to the original statement of claim, but not to the amended statement of claim. The applications included an application by Stringer for further and better discovery, an application by Craig for further and better discovery, an application by Craig for non-party discovery by Social Media Consultants Limited, an application by Craig for leave to add additional causes of action and to file a second amended statement of claim, an application by Craig for leave to serve further interrogatories and an application by Craig to strike out parts of Stringer’s defence. The court declined Stringer’s application for further and better discovery. The court granted Craig’s application for further and better discovery, in part. The court granted Craig’s application for non-party discovery by Social Media Consultants Limited. The court granted Craig’s application for leave to add additional causes of action and to file a second amended statement of claim, on conditions. The court refused Craig’s application for leave to serve further interrogatories. The court refused Craig’s application to strike out parts of Stringer’s defence.

Orders