Legal Research
Cases
Spring v Williams aka Mason

Spring v Williams aka Mason

Case [2022] NZHC 2165 29 August 2022

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV 2022-404-474

[2022] NZHC 2165

UNDER The Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

MARC ROBERT SPRING

Plaintiff

AND

ROMAN MASON WILLIAMS

also known as CRAIG MASON

Defendant

Hearing: 29 August 2022

Appearances:

The plaintiff in person

No appearance for the defendant

Judgment:

29 August 2022

JUDGMENT OF CAMPBELL J

This judgment was delivered by me on 29 August 2022 at 4.00 pm pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

SPRING v WILLIAMS [2022] NZHC 2165 [29 August 2022]

Summary

[1] The defendant, who goes by the name Craig Mason, posted statements on Instagram alleging that the plaintiff, Marc Spring, had engaged in serious criminal conduct.

[2] Mr Spring sued Mr Mason for defamation. Mr Mason did not attempt to justify his statements and did not file a statement of defence.

[3] I find that Mr Mason defamed Mr Spring. I make a declaration to that effect. I find that Mr Mason acted maliciously and that Mr Spring suffered loss as a result of Mr Mason’s defamatory post. I award Mr Spring general damages of $170,000.

Background

[4] Mr Spring is a self-employed businessperson who sells cars in the new and used car sales industries. His clients include the Giltrap Group, with which he has had a long business relationship.

[5] Mr Mason is an unemployed car salesperson and former employee of Giltrap Audi.

[6] In March 2022, Mr Spring became aware of a number of social media posts that Mr Mason had made about various employees of the Giltrap Group. Mr Spring also learned that Mr Mason had posted a photograph of him to Instagram, with a text overlay stating:

Now this guy’s is Marc Spring he is Michael gilltraps coke dealer. This guy’s deals with the gangs for the Giltraps all the cars sold to the Comancheros from the Giltraps using cash and drug money goes through him.

[7] Mr Mason’s Instagram account was not public, but his posts were visible to his 949 followers.

[8] On 22 March 2022, Mr Spring emailed Mr Mason asking for a written apology and $50,000 in settlement for hurt feelings and damage to reputation. He said that if this was not forthcoming, he would promptly file a defamation proceeding. Mr Mason

responded by email on 30 March 2022 with a series of abusive remarks. Mr Mason also said he was not responsible for “anything that I may or may not have posted on my private Instagram if someone chooses to take something and then shear it around”.

[9] Given that response, on 4 April 2022 Mr Spring filed this proceeding. He claims Mr Mason defamed him in that the text of the Instagram post falsely suggests he is a criminal drug dealer who is involved with gangs and money laundering. He seeks a declaration that Mr Mason is liable to him in defamation. He also seeks general and special damages of $431,753.09,…

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 Spring v Williams aka Mason

Details

AGLC: Spring v Williams aka Mason [2022] NZHC 2165
Case: [2022] NZHC 2165
Decision Date: 29 August 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Spring v Williams, the plaintiff, Marc Spring, brought a defamation claim against the defendant, Roman Mason Williams, also known as Craig Mason, who published defamatory statements about Spring on Instagram. Spring, a self-employed car salesperson, sued Mason for defamation after Mason posted a statement alleging that Spring was a criminal drug dealer involved with gangs and money laundering. Mason did not file a statement of defence and did not appear in court.

The court had to decide whether Spring had established a cause of action in defamation, and if so, the appropriate quantum of compensatory and punitive damages. To establish defamation, Spring had to prove that a defamatory statement was made, that the statement was about him, and that Mason published the statement. The court found that Mason's Instagram post was defamatory as it imputed criminal wrongdoing to Spring. The post was published on the internet and was seen by others in the New Zealand motor vehicle industry.

Regarding damages, the court awarded Spring general damages of $170,000, taking into account the seriousness of the defamatory statement, Mason's malicious behaviour, and the financial impact on Spring's business. The court did not award punitive damages, as it had already considered Mason's conduct in assessing general damages.

The court declared that Mason was liable to Spring in defamation and ordered Mason to pay Spring general damages of $170,000, along with his reasonable disbursements of the proceeding.

Orders