Craig v Williams - [2018] NZHC 2520

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2017-404-1065 [2018] NZHC 2520

BETWEEN
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

Plaintiff

AND

JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS Defendant

Hearing:
Further
Submissions:

19 March 2018

14 May 2018

Counsel:

C G Craig in person
P A McKnight for Defendant

Judgment:

26 September 2018

Reissued:

9 October 2018

RECALLED AND RE-ISSUED JUDGMENT OF ASSOCIATE JUDGE SMITH

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 October 2018 at 11.00am, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Solicitors / Counsel: Langford Law, Wellington P A McKnight, Wellington A J Romanos, Wellington

Copy to:
Mr C Craig

CRAIG v WILLIAMS [2018] NZHC 2520 [26 September 2018]

The following judgment was issued on 26 September 2018. Interim suppression orders were then made at the request of the defendant. After receiving memoranda from the parties and hearing from them by telephone on 8 October
2018 I recalled my judgment. The judgment is now re-issued on a "public" basis. The only change is the addition of the Addendum at the end of the judgment.

[1] The defendant (Mr Williams) applies for the following orders:

(a) striking out the plaintiff's (Mr Craig's) claim as an abuse of process;

(b) if the proceeding is not struck out, transferring the proceeding to the

Wellington Registry of the Court; and

(c)if the proceeding is not struck out, ordering Mr Craig to provide security for Mr Williams' costs.

[2] Those orders are opposed by Mr Craig.

The parties

[3] Mr Craig is an Auckland businessman, who was formerly the leader of the Conservative Party of New Zealand. Mr Williams is the executive director of the Taxpayers Union.

The claims made by Mr Craig

[4] On 29 May 2017, Mr Craig filed this proceeding ("the Craig proceeding")

against Mr Williams, alleging that Mr Williams made defamatory statements about

Mr Craig in the period between 26 May 2015 and 26 June 2015.

[5] Mr Craig's statement of claim pleads six separate causes of action, each relating to statements allegedly published by Mr Williams. I will return to the detail of Mr Craig's allegations later in this judgment, but for the moment it is enough to say that the publications in question consisted of:

(a)statements made in a text message from Mr Williams to Ms Christine Rankin, the former Chief Executive of the Conservative Party, on or about 26 May 2015;

(b) statements made by Mr Williams to Mr Dobbs and Mr Day (both then

Board members of the Conservative Party) at a meeting between

Mr Williams and those gentlemen on or about 18 June 2015;

(c)statements made by Mr Williams in a blogpost for the Whale Oil Blog on or about 19 June 2015;

(d) statements made by Mr Williams in conversations with Mr John

Stringer, then a board member of the Conservative Party, on or about

19 June 2015;

(e) statements made by Mr Williams in an email sent to Mr Stringer on

26 June 2015;…

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 Williams

Details

AGLC: Craig v Williams [2018] NZHC 2520
Case: [2018] NZHC 2520
Decision Date: 26 September 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Craig v Williams involved multiple legal issues surrounding a defamation claim brought by Colin Craig against Jordan Williams. The court had to decide whether to strike out certain parts of Craig's claim, order security for costs, and transfer the proceeding to the Wellington registry. The court found that several parts of Craig's claim were an abuse of process and were struck out, as they related to issues that had already been conclusively determined against Craig in a previous proceeding. The court declined to order security for costs, as there was insufficient evidence to suggest that Craig would be unable to pay costs if he was unsuccessful. Finally, the court dismissed the application to transfer the proceeding to the Wellington registry, as there was no evidence that the proceeding was filed in the wrong registry. The court reserved costs on the applications, as both parties had partial success.

Orders