Legal Research
Cases
Stringer v Craig

Stringer v Craig

Case [2018] NZHC 3076 26 November 2018

Discovery & Disclosure

Civil Litigation & Procedure

Defamation Law

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-2015-404-2524

[2018] NZHC 3076

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: 22 August 2018

Appearances:

J C Stringer in person

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

Judgment:

26 November 2018

JUDGMENT OF PALMER J

This judgment was delivered by me on 26 November 2018 at 2:15 p.m. pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules 2016.

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

……………………………………

Parties:
The Plaintiff The Defendants

STRINGER v CRAIG [2018] NZHC 3076 [26 November 2018]

Summary

[1] Mr John Stringer is suing Mr Colin Craig, Mrs Helen Craig, Mrs Angela Storr, Mr Kevin Stitt and Mr Steve Taylor for defamation related to events in the Conservative Party in 2015. I determine various interlocutory applications as follows:

(a)Mr Stringer has given notice for Mr Craig to produce two cell-phones and forensic extraction reports. That must be done at the time to be ordered for discovery. In the meantime, Mr Craig must preserve whatever he has of the phones for that purpose.

(b)Mr Stringer applies for further interrogatories to be answered by Mrs Craig, Mrs Storr and Mr Stitt. I decline some of these as irrelevant or because the defendants have already answered them sufficiently. But Mrs Craig and Mrs Storr do need to answer interrogatories concerning their knowledge of Mr Craig’s relationship with Ms MacGregor. That is because they are defending themselves on the basis the allegedly defamatory statements, that Mr Stringer’s statements about the relationship were false, were their honest opinion.

(c)Mr Stringer’s application to strike out Mrs Craig’s, Mrs Storr’s and Mr Stitt’s statements of defence, and Mrs Storr’s and Mr Stitt’s applications to strike out the claims against them, are declined because they have not demonstrated the defences and claims are not tenable. But Mr Stringer will need to file a further amended statement of claim and the defendants will need to respond to that.

(d)Mr Stringer’s application to strike out Mr Taylor’s statement of defence is declined. The reason Mr Taylor has not yet filed a full statement of defence until now is because the Court directed he was not obliged to do so. By a fine margin, I also decline to strike out Mr Stringer’s claim against Mr Taylor. Mr Stringer’s purpose in pressuring Mr Taylor consistently centred on vindicating his reputation and so is not, quite, a collateral purpose. A line call should be decided in favour of preserving freedom of access to the courts.

The context of this proceeding

This proceeding

[2] Mr Colin Craig was leader of the Conservative Party during the 2014 election campaign. Mr John Stringer was a Board member of the Party. Ms Rachel MacGregor Mr Craig’s former press secretary, resigned two days before the election. Afterwards,…

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 [2018] NZHC 3076
Case: [2018] NZHC 3076
Decision Date: 26 November 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of New Zealand, John Charles Stringer sued Colin Graeme Craig, Helen Ruth Craig, Angela Maria Storr, Kevin Eric Stitt, and Stephen Dylan Taylor for defamation. Stringer alleged that the defendants made defamatory statements about him during the 2014 election campaign. The defendants responded with various defences, including qualified privilege, truth, and honest opinion. Stringer made several interlocutory applications, including a request for the production of specific cell-phones and forensic extraction reports, interrogatories, and applications to strike out certain defences and claims. The court ruled that Craig must produce the requested cell-phones and reports at the time of discovery, while preserving the remaining parts of the phones. The court declined to order further answers to interrogatories, except for specific questions regarding the defendants' knowledge of Craig's relationship with Rachel MacGregor. The court also declined to strike out any of the defences or claims, but ordered Stringer to file a further amended statement of claim with better identification of defamatory statements, who made them, and their natural and ordinary meanings. The defendants were directed to file amended statements of defence in response. The court further ordered a one-day conference to discuss the proceeding and a related proceeding, as well as requiring the parties to file memoranda with various trial-related information. The court did not award any costs or disbursements to the parties, as none of them were legally represented.

Orders