Stringer v Craig - [2021] NZCA 19

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND

I TE KŌTI PĪRA O AOTEAROA

CA290/2020
[2021] NZCA 19

BETWEEN	JOHN CHARLES STRINGER Appellant
AND	COLIN GRAEME CRAIG First Respondent HELEN RUTH CRAIG Second Respondent ANGELA MARIA STORR Third Respondent KEVIN ERIC STITT Fourth Respondent STEPHEN DYLAN TAYLOR Fifth Respondent

Court:	Miller, Clifford and Goddard JJ
Counsel:	Appellant in person Respondents in person
Judgment: (On the papers)	18 February 2021 at 10.00 am

JUDGMENT OF THE COURT

AThe application for an extension of time to file the case on appeal is granted. The time for filing the case on appeal is extended to Friday, 19 March 2021.

B There is no order as to costs.

____________________________________________________________________

REASONS OF THE COURT

(Given by Goddard J)

Mr Stringer’s application for an extension of time

Mr Stringer applies under r 43(2) of the Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005 (Rules) for an extension of time to file a case on appeal that complies with r 40 of the Rules. Instead of filing a case on appeal, Mr Stringer (who is self-represented) filed his submissions in relation to the appeal. He says he was confused about what he was required to file. Because he failed to file a complying case on appeal, his appeal was deemed to be abandoned on 19 October 2020.[1]
[1]Court of Appeal (Civil) Rules 2005, r 43; and see Stringer v Craig CA290/2020, 22 October 2020 (Minute of Clifford J).
Mr Stringer wishes to pursue his appeal against a decision of Palmer J, who on 3 April 2020 dismissed Mr Stringer’s defamation claim against Mr Craig and the four other respondents.[2] The Judge held that the statements that were the subject of the proceedings were covered by one or more of the defences of truth, qualified privilege and honest opinion.[3]
[2]Stringer v Craig (No 3) [2020] NZHC 644.
[3]At [2].
Mr Stringer’s appeal was filed 12 working days out of time, in the context of the COVID-19 lockdown. He was granted an extension of time to file the appeal under r 29A of the Rules.[4]
[4]Stringer v Craig [2020] NZCA 294.
On 9 September 2020 Mr Stringer applied for a hearing date for the appeal, within the prescribed timeframe under r 43(1) of the Rules.
On 16 October 2020, within the prescribed timeframe for filing a case on appeal, Mr Stringer filed a document titled “Case on appeal 290/2020 16 October 2020”. However that document was, as noted above, his submissions on the appeal rather than a case on appeal containing all the documents relevant to the appeal as required by r 40 of the Rules.
The Court issued a minute on 22 October 2020 recording that the appeal was deemed to have been abandoned with effect from 19 October 2020. The minute recorded that “Mr Stringer may apply under r 43(2) by way of interlocutory application for an extension … by 10 February 2021”.[5]
[5]Minute of Clifford J, above n 1, at [3].
Mr Stringer applied…

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 Stringer v Craig

Details

AGLC: Stringer v Craig [2021] NZCA 19
Case: [2021] NZCA 19
Decision Date: 18 February 2021 at 10.00 am

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of New Zealand considered an application by John Charles Stringer for an extension of time to file a case on appeal in Stringer v Craig. Stringer, who was self-represented, filed his submissions in relation to the appeal instead of a compliant case on appeal, leading to his appeal being deemed abandoned. He sought an extension of time to file the case on appeal, attributing his failure to comply with the procedural requirements to genuine confusion. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that Stringer's delay was not a genuine error and that they would be prejudiced by the extension.

The Court found that Stringer's failure to file a complying case on appeal stemmed from a genuine misunderstanding. Despite this, the Court noted that Stringer promptly applied for an extension of time once he realised his error. The Court held that the prejudice to the respondents resulted from the appeal being brought, not from Stringer's procedural failure. Furthermore, the Court determined that this was not a case where the appeal was so clearly hopeless that an assessment of its merits would be relevant. Consequently, the Court granted the extension of time, stipulating that Stringer must comply with all procedural requirements in preparing the case on appeal and file it by the new deadline of 19 March 2021.

The Court of Appeal granted Stringer's application for an extension of time to file the case on appeal, extending the time for filing to 19 March 2021. The Court did not make any order as to costs, noting that neither party made submissions on this issue and that the circumstances did not warrant an award of costs.

Orders