Craig v Stringer - [2025] NZHC 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA ŌTAUTAHI ROHE

CIV-2024-409-542

[2025] NZHC 1772

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Judgment Creditor

AND

JOHN CHARLES STRINGER

Judgment Debtor

Hearing: 24 June 2025

Appearances:

N D Whittle for Judgment Creditor

J J Gasson and S Caradus for Judgment Debtor

Judgment:

1 July 2025

JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE LESTER

CRAIG v STRINGER [2025] NZHC 1772 [1 July 2025]

[1] Mr Stringer applies to set aside a bankruptcy notice issued by Mr Craig. The bankruptcy notice is based on a judgment awarding Mr Craig $56,935.34 for disbursements incurred by Mr Craig in a defamation proceeding brought by Mr Stringer against Mr Craig.

[2] Mr Stringer relies on three grounds in this application. The first is that Mr Stringer has the benefit of an award of disbursements in his favour, arising from a separate proceeding Mr Craig brought against Mr Stringer.1 In that separate proceeding, Mr Stringer was awarded disbursements in March 2023, but those disbursements have not yet been quantified.2 A separate but related ground of challenge is that Mr Stringer says following being awarded disbursements, he made an oral agreement with Mr Craig that they would treat the two awards as cancelling each other out. Finally, Mr Stringer says he was not validly served with the bankruptcy notice.

Service

[3] On 1 November 2024, Mr Craig’s solicitors emailed Mr Stringer as follows: “Regarding service of documents, would you accept service by email? If not, can you confirm you live at the [address] or have you moved?”

[4] Mr Stringer replied 15 minutes later by email: “I’ve moved, … Service by email is best, as before. Is there a response to the respective costs offset from Mr Craig?”

1 Craig v Stringer [2023] NZHC 666.
2 At [361] and [365]. Mr Stringer was a litigant in person in these proceedings, hence he was not entitled to costs at the time.

[5] The last passage of this quote refers to the offsetting of the two disbursement awards, which I deal with separately.

[6]Mr Gasson, counsel for Mr Stringer, in his submissions says:

28.While Mr Stringer did agree to accept service of ‘documents’ by email, this was in the context of a conversation regarding an offer being made on Mr Stringer’s property. Mr Stringer believed he was agreeing to service of documents relating to that offer. He did not know that he was agreeing to service of a bankruptcy notice.

[7] Mr Stringer in his affidavit says: “I did not consent to service of the Notice by email. It was my understanding that I was agreeing to service of documents in an unrelated matter.”

[8] Mr Stringer’s evidence does not explain the basis of this understanding. Nor does he link his agreement to service by email to the offer on his property. Mr Gasson’s submissions are therefore a gloss on this evidence.

[9] While in August 2024 there had been reference to someone (not Mr Craig) expressing an interest…

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 [2025] NZHC 1772
Case: [2025] NZHC 1772
Decision Date: 1 July 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, Colin Graeme Craig, the judgment creditor, applied to set aside a bankruptcy notice he had issued against John Charles Stringer, the judgment debtor. The bankruptcy notice was based on a judgment awarding Mr Craig $56,935.34 for disbursements incurred in a defamation proceeding brought by Mr Stringer against Mr Craig. Mr Stringer's application to set aside the bankruptcy notice was based on three grounds: first, that he had the benefit of an award of disbursements in his favour from a separate proceeding, and he and Mr Craig had an oral agreement to treat the awards as cancelling each other out; second, that he was not validly served with the bankruptcy notice; and third, that he had an unquantified award of disbursements which should offset Mr Craig's judgment. The court considered the evidence and submissions on each of these grounds and concluded that Mr Stringer had not established any of them.

The court found that the bankruptcy notice was validly served on Mr Stringer by email, as he had agreed to accept service by email in response to an inquiry from Mr Craig's solicitors. The court rejected Mr Stringer's claim that he did not consent to service of the bankruptcy notice by email, as he had not provided any explanation for his understanding that he was agreeing to service of documents in an unrelated matter. The court also rejected Mr Stringer's claim that he and Mr Craig had an oral agreement to offset their respective judgments, as Mr Stringer's evidence was vague and lacked detail, and there was no contemporary reference to such an agreement. The court found that Mr Stringer's claim for an unquantified award of disbursements was limited to the period after 31 January 2017, when a full and final settlement had been reached between the parties in another proceeding. The court fixed the value of Mr Stringer's award of disbursements at $9,500, which left Mr Craig's judgment debt at $47,473.34.

The court set aside the bankruptcy notice only to the extent of the judgment for disbursements now entered for Mr Stringer. The court ordered that Mr Stringer pay Mr Craig costs on a 2B basis plus disbursements as fixed by the Registrar in respect of this application.

Orders