Legal Research
Cases
Stringer v Craig

Stringer v Craig

Case [2020] NZHC 1021 18 May 2020

Admissibility of Evidence

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Defamation

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-2015-404-2524

[2020] NZHC 1021

BETWEEN
JOHN CHARLES STRINGER

Plaintiff

AND

COLIN GRAEME CRAIG

First Defendant

HELEN RUTH CRAIG
Second Defendant

ANGELA MARIA STORR
Third Defendant

KEVIN ERIC STITT

Fifth Defendant

STEPHEN 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 and S D Taylor in person

W Akel, Counsel assisting the Court

Judgment:

18 May 2020

JUDGMENT NO 4 OF PALMER J

(Costs)

This judgment was delivered by me on Monday 18 May 2020 at 11.00am.

Pursuant to Rule 11.5 of the High Court Rules

………………………… Registrar/Deputy Registrar

All parties in person
W Akel, Barrister, Counsel assisting the Court

STRINGER v CRAIG NO 4 (COSTS) [2020] NZHC 1021 [18 May 2020]

Summary

[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.

Judgment

[2] I issued the substantive judgment in this proceeding on 3 April 2020.1 The summary was:

[1] In July 2015, after the implosion of the Conservative Party, Mr Colin Craig and Mrs Helen Craig said Mr Craig had been the victim of dirty politics as the Party’s former leader. They named three individuals as responsible, including Mr John Stringer, a former Conservative Party Board member. They gave a press conference and published a booklet saying so and distributed it to 1.63 million households in New Zealand. Mr Craig made other public statements saying so. The booklet was moderated, anonymously, by Mr Stephen Taylor. Party officials, Mrs Angela Storr and Mr Kevin Stitt, emailed updates to Conservative Party members about Mr Stringer and Mr Craig’s booklet and legal proceedings.

[2] Mr Stringer sues the five of them for defamation. All six parties represent themselves. The defendants fairly characterise their statements as falling broadly into six categories of meanings regarding Mr Stringer, that he: lied or is a liar; engaged in attack politics; coordinated with others to target Mr Craig; seriously breached the Conservative Party’s rules; acted unlawfully (by defaming Mr Craig); and betrayed…

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 [2020] NZHC 1021
Case: [2020] NZHC 1021
Decision Date: 18 May 2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Stringer v Craig, John Charles Stringer, the plaintiff, sued five defendants, including Colin Graeme Craig, Helen Ruth Craig, Angela Maria Storr, Kevin Eric Stitt, and Stephen Dylan Taylor, for defamation. The defendants had published statements about Mr Stringer in a booklet distributed to 1.63 million households in New Zealand and made other public statements. The defendants argued that their statements were either true, honest opinions, or protected by qualified privilege. The court found that the defendants had successfully defended the defamation claims based on the defences of truth, honest opinion, and qualified privilege. As a result, Mr Stringer was ordered to pay the defendants' reasonable disbursements.

The court considered the defendants' submissions on costs, which included filing fees, courier fees, printing and compilation of bundles, travel costs, and legal assistance fees. The defendants argued that Mr Stringer should indemnify them for their legal fees because he continued to pursue the case despite the strength of their defences and multiple settlement offers. Mr Stringer argued that his claim both succeeded and failed, and he questioned the fairness of facing further costs. He also argued that his means were constrained and that he and his wife had exhausted their savings with legal costs.

The court ordered Mr Stringer to pay the defendants' reasonable disbursements, including filing fees, courier fees, printing and compilation of bundles, and travel costs. The court also ordered Mr Stringer to pay a proportion of the defendants' disbursements for legal advice and assistance relating to his proceeding until 29 July 2019, and to indemnify the defendants for their legal advice and assistance disbursements after that date. The court rejected Mr Stringer's argument that he should not be required to indemnify the defendants for their legal fees, finding that he had been on notice of the strength of the defendants' case and the likelihood that they would seek payment of their disbursements. The court also rejected Mr Stringer's argument that his constrained means should excuse him from paying costs, finding that the principle of a losing party paying a winning party's costs was in the interests of all litigants and the legal system.

Orders