Stringer v Craig - [2022] NZHC 1764

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2015-404-2524

[2022] NZHC 1764

UNDER the Defamation Act 1992

BETWEEN

JOHN CHARLES STRINGER

Plaintiff

AND

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

First Defendant

AND

HELEN RUTH CRAIG

Second Defendant

AND

ANGELA MARIA STORR

Third Defendant

AND

KEVIN ERIC STITT

Fifth Defendant

AND

STEPEHN DYLAN TAYLOR

Sixth Defendant

Hearing: On the papers

Appearances:

J C Stringer in person

C G Craig, H R Craig, A M Storr, K E Stitt, S D Taylor in person

Judgment:

21 July 2022

JUDGMENT No 6 OF PALMER J

(Costs revisited)

STRINGER v CRAIG [2022] NZHC 1764 [21 July 2022]

Costs

[1] On 3 April 2020, I issued judgment in these proceedings, in favour of the defendants.1 On 18 May 2020, I awarded costs to the defendants saying, in summary:2

[1] The New Zealand legal system gives litigants incentives to bring and defend litigation according to the expected merits of their cases by directing a losing party to pay a winning party a contribution towards their legal costs and reasonable disbursements. That is in the interests of all litigants and in the interests of the legal system. Mr John Stringer was unsuccessful in bringing defamation proceedings against five defendants. He must pay the reasonable disbursements of the defendants. The defendants were not legally represented but paid fees for legal advice and assistance. I order Mr Stringer to pay part of these fees up to and including 29 July 2019. But from then on, he can fairly be regarded as having been on notice of the strength of the defendants’ case and the likelihood that they would seek payment of their disbursements. So, after 29 July 2019, Mr Stringer must pay the full amount of their legal fees, as reasonable disbursements.

[2]I ordered Mr Stringer to pay, as reasonable disbursements:3

(a)the defendants’ filing fees, courier fees, printing and compilation of bundles and travel costs disbursements, totalling $7,509.43;

(b)the proportion of the defendants’ disbursements for legal advice and assistance relating to Mr Stringer’s proceeding in schedule 2 to the defendants’ memorandum of 14 April 2020, up to and including 29 July 2019; and

(c)the defendants’ disbursements for legal advice and assistance relating to Mr Stringer’s proceeding in schedule 3 to the defendants’ memorandum of 14 April 2020, after 29 July 2019, but not the lost income claimed by Mr Taylor and Mrs Storr.

[3]On 18 June 2020, I made further directions as to costs.4 Costs were fixed at

$77,238.43. On 27 August 2020, pending appeal to the Court of Appeal, I stayed any steps to enforce the costs award, including through the bankruptcy process and through taking further steps in relation to a charging order.5 I also released to the defendants the security for costs paid by Mr Stringer to the Registry.

1      Stringer v Craig (No 3) [2020] NZHC 644.
2      Stringer v Craig (No 4) [2020] NZHC 1021.
3 At [26].
4      Stringer v Craig CIV-2015-404-2524, 18 June…

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 [2022] NZHC 1764
Case: [2022] NZHC 1764
Decision Date: 21 July 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Stringer v Craig was a defamation case in the High Court of New Zealand. The plaintiff, John Charles Stringer, brought proceedings against several defendants, including Colin Graeme Craig, who was the primary respondent. The plaintiff's case was dismissed, and the defendants were awarded costs. The plaintiff subsequently appealed the costs decision, which was ultimately remitted back to the High Court by the Court of Appeal for reconsideration. The central legal issue before the court was the determination of the appropriate contribution by the plaintiff towards the defendants' legal costs and disbursements following the remittal by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal had held that the principles of indemnity costs should not be applied to the recovery of disbursements, particularly in cases involving lay litigants, and that a partial indemnity approach should be taken instead. The court needed to reassess the costs to be borne by the plaintiff, focusing on what constituted a reasonable contribution to the defendants' legal fees based on a partial indemnity approach. The court considered the evidence provided by the defendants regarding the fees incurred and the nature of the legal services provided.

In making its decision, the court examined the evidence presented by the defendants, including an affidavit from Mr. Justin Graham of Chapman Tripp, which outlined the fees incurred by the defendants in relation to the plaintiff's claim. The court concluded that a reasonable contribution by the plaintiff to the defendants' legal fees as disbursements would involve him paying $54,425.91. This amount was based on the fees directly related to the trial and legal submissions in the current proceedings. The court did not require the plaintiff to pay for the estimated fees related to mixed attendances and unallocated fees, as their connection to the current proceedings was deemed too uncertain.

The court's decision resulted in an order that the plaintiff pay the defendants' disbursements on a partial indemnity basis in the amount of $61,935.34, of which $5,000 had already been effectively paid from the security provided by the plaintiff. The court thus addressed the remittal from the Court of Appeal and set out a clear basis for the contribution to be made by the plaintiff towards the defendants' legal costs.

Orders