[1] Mr Colin Craig sues Mr John Stringer in defamation for saying Mr Craig sexually harassed Ms Rachel MacGregor. In response, Mr Stringer sues Mr Colin Craig and others in defamation, including for saying Mr Stringer lied about the sexual harassment. There are four other proceedings about the same subject: Mr Craig has defended himself in a defamation suit by Mr Jordan Williams and Mr Craig has brought three separate defamation suits, against Mr Cameron Slater, Mr Williams and Ms MacGregor herself. There have been three trials in these other proceedings in the High Court, in September 2016, May 2017 and September/October 2017. The nature of defamation law means that, on each occasion, to defend themselves, the defendants must call evidence of whether Mr Craig sexually harassed Ms MacGregor.
[2] It cannot be right that a litigant can sue any number of defendants in defamation, in separate proceedings over a period of years, for publishing substantially the same allegations concerning sexual harassment of a person, requiring each of those defendants to call evidence about that alleged harassment in order to defend themselves. Enough is enough. Allowing Mr Craig to pursue the defamation proceeding he initiated against Mr Stringer would either require Ms MacGregor to give evidence and be cross-examined for a fourth time about whether Mr Craig sexually harassed her or would put Mr Stringer at a significant disadvantage in his defence. It would be oppressive to either Ms MacGregor or Mr Stringer. Mr Craig has had, and continues to have, plenty of access to justice on this subject, in other
proceedings. I consider it would be an abuse of the High Court’s processes for Mr Craig to be able to pursue his defamation proceeding against Mr Stringer. I stay Mr Craig’s proceeding against Mr Stringer and the aspect of Mr Stringer’s proceeding in response about the same issue.
[3] In addition, Mr Craig makes three applications in relation to the remainder of Mr Stringer’s proceeding, in respect of…
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 [2019] NZHC 1363
Case
[2019] NZHC 1363
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Craig v Stringer [2019] NZHC 1363 involves a complex web of defamation litigation, primarily between Mr Colin Craig and Mr John Stringer, regarding allegations of sexual harassment and related defamation claims. The case delves into issues of issue estoppel, abuse of process, discovery, and the use of McKenzie friends in court proceedings. The High Court, in its judgment, addresses these issues, providing significant guidance on the management of multiple defamation proceedings concerning the same core allegations.
The court first examines the concept of issue estoppel and abuse of process in the context of multiple defamation proceedings. It holds that while issue estoppel does not apply due to the different parties involved, the repetitive nature of the litigation concerning the same core allegations of sexual harassment constitutes an abuse of process. The court emphasises the need to prevent oppressive litigation that excessively burdens the court system and the parties involved, particularly the complainant, Ms Rachel MacGregor.
Furthermore, the court addresses the application for further discovery of documents, ruling that specific communications and blog posts relevant to the defamation claims must be disclosed. It also considers the request for McKenzie friends in court, granting permission for Mr Thomas Cleary, a lawyer, to assist Mr Craig, while also allowing Mr Stringer to have a layperson as a McKenzie friend. Finally, the court orders Mr Stringer to pay security for costs, recognising the substantial financial burden the litigation imposes on the defendants.
The judgment underscores the importance of judicial discretion in managing complex litigation, ensuring that the court's processes are not abused and that justice is served efficiently and fairly. The court's decision to stay certain aspects of the proceedings and to manage the discovery and representation issues highlights its role in maintaining the integrity of the legal process.