Craig v Stringer - [2016] NZHC 362

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000575 [2016] NZHC 362

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff and First Counterclaim Defendant

AND

JOHN CHARLES STRINGER Defendant and Counterclaim Plaintiff

AND

HELEN RUTH CRAIG

Second Counterclaim Defendant

Hearing: 2 March 2016

Appearances:

C G Craig in person
J C Stringer in person
(H R Craig excused)

Judgment:

4 March 2016

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE OSBORNE
as to strike out application

Introduction

[1] On its face, the application before the Court is a relatively ordinary application by a plaintiff to strike out the defendant’s statement of defence and, at the same time, to strike out the counterclaim. The application is opposed by the defendant. It is to be dealt with by the application of established principles, to which
I will come.1

[2] Beyond these matters, the ordinariness of the application ceases. The pleadings are complex. The pleading of the plaintiff, Mr Craig, runs some 311 paragraphs with many sub-paragraphs, occupying 80 pages. Thirty-one causes of
action, all in defamation, are pleaded.

1 Below at [7] and subsequent.

CRAIG v STRINGER [2016] NZHC 362 [4 March 2016]

[3] The defendant, Mr Stringer, in turn, initially filed a statement of defence and counterclaim. It is a 78-page document comprising partly a statement of defence and partly a counterclaim which appears to contain 31 causes of action. Mr Craig and his wife were named as counterclaim defendants.

[4] After Mr Craig filed his strike out application, Mr Stringer filed an amended statement of defence and counterclaim. It is a 46-page document but annexes a 28- page “Defence Schedule” containing 13 documents. The amended statement of defence in its pleading is a more succinct document than the original statement of defence in that Mr Stringer has endeavoured to meet the requirement to admit or deny allegations in the statement of claim.

[5] Beyond the pleadings themselves, there is a complexity to the proceeding because its subject-matter has been played out on the national stage in the course of a General Election through a range of events (including press conferences) and media (including emails, blog posts and Facebook entries). As I will come to, a defamation proceeding has also been issued by Mr Stringer against Mr Craig and others out of the Auckland Registry.

[6] Finally, this proceeding is now complicated by the fact that already complicated matters of litigation are to be conducted by individuals who have no legal qualifications. Mr Stringer has indicated to Mr Craig that he is likely to request trial by jury.

Striking out a pleading

The principles

[7] High Court Rule 15.1 makes provision for orders striking out all or part of a pleading. It provides:

15.1 Dismissing or staying all or part of proceeding

(1) The court may strike out all or part of a pleading if it—

(a) discloses no reasonably arguable cause of action, defence, or case appropriate to the nature of the pleading; or

(b) is likely to cause prejudice or delay; or

(c) is frivolous…

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 362
Case: [2016] NZHC 362
Decision Date: 4 March 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Craig v Stringer, the plaintiff, Colin Craig, sought to strike out the statement of defence and counterclaim filed by the defendant, John Stringer, in a defamation proceeding. The proceeding was heard by Associate Judge Osborne in the High Court of New Zealand, Christchurch Registry. The defendant opposed the strike-out application. The court identified several issues, including whether the pleadings complied with the requirements of the High Court Rules and inherent jurisdiction of the court to regulate its own processes. The court found that Mr Stringer's original pleading was poorly conceived and constructed and breached the requirements of pleading. However, after Mr Stringer filed an amended statement of defence and counterclaim, the court found that while it retained serious deficiencies, the court should give Mr Stringer a further period to file a compliant pleading. The court imposed an unless order, requiring Mr Stringer to file an amended statement of defence that rectifies the deficiencies within 30 working days. If he fails to do so, an order striking out the defence of the defendant is made. The defendant is also required to pay costs and disbursements to the plaintiff. The counterclaim was discontinued by Mr Stringer during the hearing.

Orders