CRAIG v STRINGER [2019] NZHC 1363

CRAIG v STRINGER [2019] NZHC 1363

The Court held that although issue estoppel did not bar proof of whether Craig sexually harassed MacGregor because earlier proceedings involved different parties, the cumulative effect of multiple defamation proceedings on the same core issue constituted an abuse of process: permitting Craig to pursue the action...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] 3 NZLR 743
Parties
Plaintiff; First Defendant: Colin Graeme Craig; Defendant; Plaintiff: John Charles Stringer; Second Defendant: Helen Ruth Craig; Third Defendant: Angela Maria Storr; Fifth Defendant: Kevin Eric Stitt; Sixth Defendant: Stephen Dylan Taylor
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
17 June 2019
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Interlocutory (judgment on Abuse of Process, Discovery, Mc Kenzie Friend and Security for Costs)
Outcome
Interlocutory orders: stay of Craig's claim against Stringer and related element of Stringer's claim; discovery orders; permission for McKenzie friends with conditions; security for costs ordered
Legal Topics
Issue Estoppel, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Discovery, Mc Kenzie Friend, Security for Costs, Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence
Defamation Civil Procedure Evidence Administrative/judicial Process Issue Estoppel Res Judicata Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings +5 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Colin Graeme Craig

Plaintiff; First Defendant

John Charles Stringer

Defendant; Plaintiff

Helen Ruth Craig

Second Defendant

Angela Maria Storr

Third Defendant

Kevin Eric Stitt

Fifth Defendant

Stephen Dylan Taylor

Sixth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Interlocutory (judgment on Abuse of Process, Discovery, Mc Kenzie Friend and Security for Costs)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether issue estoppel or res judicata prevents relitigation of whether Craig sexually harassed MacGregor
  2. 2 Whether multiple defamation proceedings by the same plaintiff against different defendants about the same matter can be an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether to stay or strike out proceedings as an abuse of process under High Court Rules r15.1

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that although issue estoppel did not bar proof of whether Craig sexually harassed MacGregor because earlier proceedings involved different parties, the cumulative effect of multiple defamation proceedings on the same core issue constituted an abuse of process: permitting Craig to pursue the action against Stringer would be oppressive to MacGregor and unfair to Stringer. The Court therefore stayed Craig's proceeding against Stringer and the corresponding element of Stringer's claim concerning the same issue, while allowing discovery of specified documents, permitting a lawyer to act as McKenzie friend for Craig (and a lay McKenzie friend for Stringer) subject to conditions,...

Court Disposition

Interlocutory orders: stay of Craig's claim against Stringer and related element of Stringer's claim; discovery orders; permission for McKenzie friends with conditions; security for costs ordered

Orders

  • Stringer may not relitigate issues previously determined between Craig and Stringer concerning sexual harassment of other women, fraudulent business dealings and electoral fraud
  • Craig's defamation proceeding against Stringer is stayed; leave reserved to Craig, Stringer or Rachel MacGregor to apply to lift the stay with service on all