Craig v Stringer - [2016] NZHC 2808

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND CHRISTCHURCH REGISTRY

CIV-2015-409-000575 [2016] NZHC 2808

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

JOHN CHARLES STRINGER Defendant

Hearing: 21 November 2016

Appearances:

Plaintiff Appears in Person
Defendant Appears in Person

Judgment:

23 November 2016

JUDGMENT OF GENDALL J

CRAIG v STRINGER [2016] NZHC 2808 [23 November 2016]

Introduction

[1] In this proceeding the plaintiff sues the defendant in defamation. The trial is scheduled to take place in March 2017 and three weeks have been allowed for the hearing.

[2] Two interlocutory issues have been raised here which need to be resolved without delay. They are:

(a) An application by the defendant filed on 19 September 2016 seeking review of a decision of Associate Judge Matthews in this Court relating to refusal of a discovery order sought by the defendant; and

(b)An application by the defendant brought in a formal notice of application filed on 8 November 2016 seeking a direction that the trial of this matter be before a jury.

[3] Both applications are opposed by the plaintiff.

Background

[4] The plaintiff is the former leader of the Conservative Party which participated in the New Zealand General Election in 2014. The defendant is a former member of the Board of the Conservative Party.

[5] In his pleading in this matter, now represented by an amended statement of claim, the plaintiff says that the defendant defamed him in June, July and August
2015 in what he describes as a relentless succession of publications in various media.

[6] From the amended pleadings it seems that in mid 2015 a serious disagreement had arisen between the plaintiff and the defendant and also between the plaintiff and other members of the Board of the Conservative Party. Significant altercations arose, some of which at least it appears were linked to the plaintiff's association with his former press secretary, Ms Rachel McGregor (Ms McGregor).

[7] A particular issue which surfaced from this turmoil within the Conservative Party was whether the plaintiff should remain as its leader. During the time the issue was under consideration, the plaintiff decided to send out a form of ballot paper to members of the Conservative Party seeking their response on whether he should continue or step down. The ballot paper asked particularly for the recipient to tick one of two boxes, the first reading:

Colin, please continue.

and the second reading:

Colin, time to give it away.

Boxes to tick either “Yes” or “No”, alongside diagrams of a hand with a raised thumb in one case or with a thumb pointing downwards in the other case, were to be completed. The ballot papers were then to be returned to an address which appeared to be that of the plaintiff.

[8] In the present proceeding, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant made various defamatory comments about him in relation to his taking this particular step. The essence of this part of the plaintiff's complaint seems to be that the defendant made statements alleging that the ballot…

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 2808
Case: [2016] NZHC 2808
Decision Date: 23 November 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Craig v Stringer involved a defamation suit filed by Colin Graeme Craig against John Charles Stringer. Stringer, a former member of the Board of the Conservative Party, was accused by Craig of making defamatory comments in relation to a ballot that Craig had sent to party members, seeking their opinion on whether he should continue as the party's leader. Stringer's defence included claims that the ballot was rigged and selectively sent to members who supported Craig.

The High Court was required to decide on two interlocutory issues: the defendant's application for review of a decision declining a discovery order for the ballot papers, and the defendant's application for a jury trial. The court found that the ballot papers were relevant to Stringer's defence and thus discoverable. It was also determined that the case was unsuitable for a jury trial due to its complexity and the potential for confusion among the jurors. The court directed that the trial would proceed before a judge alone.

The court quashed the earlier decision declining the discovery order and directed that Craig was to provide the ballot papers for inspection by Stringer. Additionally, the court denied Stringer's application for a jury trial and ordered that the trial would proceed before a judge alone.

Orders