FOR A COURT READY (FEE REQUIRED) VERSION PLEASE FOLLOW THIS LINK
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
CA250/2017 [2018] NZCA 31
BETWEEN
JORDAN HENRY WILLIAMS Appellant
AND
COLIN GRAEME CRAIG Respondent
Hearing:
21 and 22 November 2017 (further submissions received 15 and 18 December 2017)
Court:
Harrison, Miller and Gilbert JJ
Counsel:
P A McKnight and A J Romanos for Appellant S J Mills QC, JWJ Graham and T F Cleary for Respondent
Judgment:
5 March 2018 at 4.00 pm
Reissued:
8 March 2018 (effective date of judgment remains 5 March 2018)
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT
AThe appeal is allowed in part. The order made in the High Court for retrial of the appellant’s claims for liability and damages is set aside.
BJudgment is entered for the appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict on liability. An order is made directing a retrial of the appellant’s claim for damages.
C In all other respects the appeal and cross appeal are dismissed.
DThe respondent is ordered to pay the appellant 50 per cent of costs as calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements. There is no order for costs on the cross-appeal. All costs issues arising in the High Court are to be determined in that Court in accordance with this judgment.
Jordan Williams is the founder and executive director of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union. Colin Craig was the founding leader of the Conservative Party of New Zealand. Mr Williams is a former supporter of the Conservative Party and its political philosophy of fiscal and social conservatism.
Mr Williams claimed Mr Craig defamed him in statements made in two sequential publications in 2015. Mr Craig’s statements were made in response to Mr Williams’ publicised allegation that Mr Craig had sexually harassed his former secretary. Mr Williams sued Mr Craig for damages in the High Court. Mr Craig ran the affirmative defences of truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. A jury found for Mr Williams following a trial of nearly four weeks. It awarded him $1.27 million. It was the largest defamation damages award in New Zealand’s legal history.
On Mr Craig’s application, Katz J, the trial judge, declined to enter judgment for Mr Williams in accordance with the jury’s verdict. She later set aside the verdict on the ground that…
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 Williams v Craig
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31
Case
[2018] NZCA 31
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Jordan Williams, the founder and executive director of the New Zealand Taxpayers’ Union, sued Colin Craig, the founding leader of the Conservative Party of New Zealand, for defamation. Mr Williams sued for defamation following Mr Craig’s public statements in response to Mr Williams’ allegation that Mr Craig had sexually harassed his former secretary, Rachel MacGregor. Mr Williams sued for damages in the High Court. Mr Craig ran the affirmative defences of truth, honest opinion and qualified privilege. Following a trial of nearly four weeks, a jury found for Mr Williams and awarded him $1.27 million. The largest defamation damages award in New Zealand’s legal history. Katz J, the trial judge, declined to enter judgment for Mr Williams in accordance with the jury’s verdict. She later set aside the verdict on the ground that the damages award was excessive. She ordered a new trial of Mr Williams’ claim on both liability and damages, but declined Mr Craig’s application to enter judgment in his favour. Mr Williams’ appeal against the order for a retrial raises the issues of whether the Judge erred in: (a) setting aside the verdict; and (b) if not, whether the order should have been for a retrial on both liability and damages or limited to damages only, leaving the liability verdict intact. Mr Craig’s cross-appeal against the Judge’s dismissal of his application for judgment also raises two primary issues: (a) did the Judge materially misdirect the jury on his defence of qualified privilege; and (b) was the jury’s adverse verdict on that defence unsupported by the evidence? The Court allowed Mr Williams’ appeal in part. The order made in the High Court for a retrial of the appellant’s claim for liability and damages is set aside. Judgment is entered for the appellant in accordance with the jury’s verdict on liability. An order is made directing a retrial of the appellant’s claim for damages. In all other respects the appeal and cross-appeal are dismissed. The respondent is ordered to pay the appellant 50 per cent of costs as calculated for a standard appeal on a band A basis with usual disbursements. There is no order for costs on the cross-appeal. All costs issues arising in the High Court are to be determined in that Court in accordance with this judgment.