CRAIG v SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LTD & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1315

CRAIG v SOCIAL MEDIA CONSULTANTS LTD & ANOR [2017] NZHC 1315

The High Court allowed the appeal because the District Court judge erred by treating the plaintiff's failure to file a formal reply as determinative of summary judgment against Williams and erred in concluding the claim was vexatious and an abuse of process; the claimant was entitled to have the merits of his copyright claim determined, the strike out and summary judgment orders and the costs order were quashed, and the matter was remitted for further case management and substantive determination.

Citation
[2017] NZHC 1315
Parties
Appellant: Colin Graeme Craig; First Respondent: Social Media Consultants Limited; Second Respondent: Jordan Henry Williams
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
14 June 2017
Procedural Posture
Copyright Act 1994 / Appeal From District Court Interlocutory Decisions (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Costs)
Outcome
Appeal allowed; District Court interlocutory judgment (summary judgment to Williams and strike out of claim) and costs decision quashed; claim reinstated and remitted to District Court for further case management and substantive hearing
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Vexatious Litigant, Fair Dealing Defence, Reply to Affirmative Defences, Remedies for Copyright Infringement, Account of Profits
Copyright Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Costs Defamation (referenced) Summary Judgment Strike Out Vexatious Litigant +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Graeme Craig

Appellant

Social Media Consultants Limited

First Respondent

Jordan Henry Williams

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Copyright Act 1994 / Appeal From District Court Interlocutory Decisions (summary Judgment, Strike Out, Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to file a reply to affirmative defences is determinative of a summary judgment application
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's copyright claim was vexatious or an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' publication qualified as fair dealing under s 42(2) Copyright Act 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court allowed the appeal because the District Court judge erred by treating the plaintiff's failure to file a formal reply as determinative of summary judgment against Williams and erred in concluding the claim was vexatious and an abuse of process; the claimant was entitled to have the merits of his copyright claim determined, the strike out and summary judgment orders and the costs order were quashed, and the matter was remitted for further case management and substantive determination.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; District Court interlocutory judgment (summary judgment to Williams and strike out of claim) and costs decision quashed; claim reinstated and remitted to District Court for further case management and substantive hearing

Orders

  • Quash District Court judgment dated 6 December 2016 and costs decision dated 5 April 2017
  • Reinstate plaintiff's claim and remit to the District Court for a case management conference to advance to a substantive hearing