Craig v Stringer - [2021] NZHC 2906

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2015-409-575

[2021] NZHC 2906

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN STRINGER

Defendant

Hearing: 8 July 2021

Appearances:

Plaintiff in person

Defendant in person (with J Simpson as McKenzie friend) W Akel, counsel assisting the Court

Judgment:

29 October 2021

Reissued:

24 November 2021

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 October 2021 and re-delivered by me on 24 November at 4:30 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5
of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

CRAIG v STRINGER [2021] NZHC 2906 [29 October 2021]

Introduction

[1] Mr Craig sues Mr Stringer for defamation. Mr Stringer applies to strike out parts of Mr Craig’s fourth amended statement of claim, primarily on the ground those parts have already been determined by an earlier judgment of this Court.

Factual background1

[2] Mr Craig was the leader of the Conservative Party from 2011 until 2015. Two days before the general election in September 2014, Mr Craig’s press secretary, Rachel MacGregor, suddenly resigned. Ms MacGregor privately alleged that Mr Craig had sexually harassed her during the three-year period she had been his press secretary. She also claimed she had not been fully paid. After Mr Craig denied these allegations, Ms MacGregor filed a claim with the New Zealand Human Rights Commission.

[3] In November 2014, Ms MacGregor confided in Jordan Williams that Mr Craig had sexually harassed her. Mr Williams was a lawyer, the co-founder and executive director of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union and a supporter of the Conservative Party. Ms MacGregor disclosed to him in confidence some of the letters and cards Mr Craig had sent to her. Mr Williams assured Ms MacGregor that he would keep this information confidential as if he were her lawyer. However, in breach of that undertaking, Mr Williams made various statements to a number of leading figures associated with the Conservative Party, including that Mr Craig had sexually harassed Ms MacGregor and had sent sexually explicit text messages to her.

[4] Ms MacGregor’s sexual harassment claim was not determined by the Human Rights Commission because the parties reached a confidential settlement of their disputes at a mediation in May 2015. This settlement was intended by Mr Craig and Ms MacGregor to be the end of the matter.

[5] However, Mr Williams decided to mount a campaign to remove Mr Craig as leader of the Conservative Party. In further breach of his confidentiality undertaking, Mr Williams told various leading figures associated with the Party, including Mr

1 This background is taken from a judgment of the Court of Appeal in this proceeding, Craig v Stringer [2020] NZCA 260.

Stringer, a board member, that Mr Craig had sexually harassed Ms MacGregor and he showed them some of Mr Craig’s letters to her. He also said Mr Craig had sent sexually explicit text messages to Ms MacGregor and falsely claimed he had copies of these. Mr…

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 [2021] NZHC 2906
Case: [2021] NZHC 2906
Decision Date: 29 October 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case before the court was an application by John Stringer to strike out parts of Colin Craig's fourth amended statement of claim. The court was required to decide the effect of a previous recall judgment and whether certain parts of Mr Craig's pleadings were relevant context for determining the meaning of the impugned publications. The court found that the recall judgment limited Mr Craig's claims to publications alleging that Mr Craig sexually harassed Ms MacGregor, and only to the extent of that pleaded meaning. The court also found that some of the challenged pleadings provided relevant context for determining the meaning of the impugned publications. Based on these findings, the court struck out certain parts of Mr Craig's fourth amended statement of claim, as identified in the judgment. Mr Craig was ordered to pay 75 per cent of Mr Stringer's reasonable disbursements on the application.

Orders