STRINGER v CRAIG NO 3 [2020] NZHC 644

STRINGER v CRAIG NO 3 [2020] NZHC 644

Plaintiff's claims dismissed: the Craigs' booklet and press conference statements were lawful responses to plaintiff's sustained attacks and leaks and attracted qualified privilege; nearly all challenged factual imputations were true or not materially different from the truth and opinions were honestly held;...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] NZHC 644
Parties
Plaintiff: John Charles Stringer; First Defendant: Colin Graeme Craig; 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
3 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Defamation / Judgment (trial)
Outcome
All of the plaintiff's claims dismissed
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Truth Defence, Honest Opinion, Publication Liability, Joint Publication, Damages, Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel
Defamation Media Law Evidence Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Truth Defence Honest Opinion Publication Liability +4 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Charles Stringer

Plaintiff

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

Procedural Posture

Defamation / Judgment (trial)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Craigs are liable for statements in the booklet and at its launch
  2. 2 Whether the moderator (Taylor) published and is liable for booklet statements
  3. 3 Whether Craig is liable for other media and written statements

Ratio Decidendi

Plaintiff's claims dismissed: the Craigs' booklet and press conference statements were lawful responses to plaintiff's sustained attacks and leaks and attracted qualified privilege; nearly all challenged factual imputations were true or not materially different from the truth and opinions were honestly held; Taylor's moderation amounted to participation in publication but he enjoys the same defences; party officials' member updates were privileged under duty to publish; privilege was not defeated by improper purpose except the single corruption imputation for which truth was not established but that did not alter outcome.

Court Disposition

All of the plaintiff's claims dismissed

Orders

  • All claims dismissed
  • Defendants to file memoranda on costs within 10 working days of judgment