Answers to the quiz, or: fact-check this, you nerds

The quiz for the recently-returned-to-work is here.

Here are what I think are the answers.  Most of the questions I pulled from useless trivia knowledge taking up valuable space in my head, but I am prepared to be proved wrong.  I am bracing myself to be Edgelered/Geddised unstintingly: feel free to either comment or to tweet me @strictlyobiter

Which famous New Zealand case:

 

Which (current or former) Chief Justice of New Zealand:

  • Died at sea? Sir Charles Skerrett
  • Was Premier of New Zealand? Sir Robert Stout
  • Shared a name with a famous Saturday Night Live alum? Sir Michael Myers
  • Was the last Chief Justice to serve in World War 2? Sir Ronald Davison
  • Had a Masters from Stanford? Dame Sian Elias

 

Explain under what circumstances a High Court Judge could give a minority decision, with the majority decision being given by people without law degrees. I think they could either under the Human Rights Act or the Commerce Act, when additional members of the Court are appointed: see s 126 of the Human Rights Act 1993 and s 77 of the Commerce Act 1986.

UPDATE: Andrew Geddis has pointed out why I am almost certainly incorrect on this.  You can read the tweet discussion starting with this tweet.

 

How many current High Court judges (including those in the appellate courts):

  • Were formerly Associate Judges? Four: Venning, Lang, Gendall and Osborne JJ
  • Were formerly District Court Judges? Two: Thomas and Powell JJ
  • Were formerly Law Commissioners? Two: Elias CJ and Brewer J

 

Are there more High Court judges (including those in the appellate courts) currently on the bench who used to hold warrants as Crown solicitors, or who were formerly partners at Russell McVeagh? More Russell McVeagh partners (Kos P and Peters, Whata, Katz, Fitzgerald JJ) than former Crown solicitors (Lang, Brewer, Moore, and Gordon (acting warrant) JJ).

 

Solve these cryptic crossword clues:

  • Milne’s Robin can’t be beat? He’s on the bench. (11,7) Christopher Toogood
  • A colloquial winner hesitates then gives brief thank you for the impermissible litigation funding. (9) Champerty
  • Court is seen when reverse father joins the sound of bells. (6) Appeal
  • Two Dams Hewn for justice. (6,5) Mathew Downs
  • Junior royals take in subcontinent’s cricket league and reveal Lands’ outcome. (9) Principles
  • Holding proportion. (5) Ratio

 

Put these statutes in order from smallest number of sections to largest number of sections (counting only solely-numbered sections ie. s 30 counts, s 30A does not count).

  • Evidence Act 2006 Second – 216 sections
  • Crimes Act 1961 Third – 415 sections
  • Interpretation Act 1999 First – 38 sections

 

Name as many New Zealand Queen’s Counsel who have taken silk from 2013 onwards as you can.  Write as many as you can/want but be sure they’re correct.  When you want to stop, do so.  Then check your answers.  If all right, you get the same points as your number of answers.  If you get just one wrong, then you get no points.

Check your answers against this list.

 

What was the last year to have only one volume of the New Zealand Law Reports?

1983

 

For years the leading textbook on the law of contract in New Zealand was Burrows, Finn and Todd, but now (some of) the authors have changed.  What are the surnames of the three authors of the latest version?

Finn, Todd and (Matthew) Barber

 

What is the name of the High Court (or former Supreme Court) judge in New Zealand who held their position for the shortest period of time?

James Crosby Martin was a Supreme Court Judge for one day (officially) from 1 January 1901 to 2 January 1901. You have to discount his time as an acting judge in 1900, and then accept his retroactive resignation, deemed to be accepted on 2 January 1901.  And the terms of the question discount his earlier tenure as a judge of the Arbitration Court.

 

Name a New Zealand judgment with a measurement of length in the title (bonus point if you get one that I haven’t thought of).

All I got was Eight Mile Style v New Zealand National Party, and Bryson v Three Foot Six Ltd.

 

What bench in New Zealand wears blue robes?

The coronial bench.

 

Austin Nichols & Co Ltd v Stichting Lodestar is a frequently cited case in New Zealand for the principles of a general appeal.  What is a stichting?

Wikipedia will explain this to you.

 

Which two Crown Solicitor’s offices do not have a website for their law firm? (Name the regions.)

Dunedin and Nelson.

 

What word or words link?

  • A current High Court judge and a seminal case on “regall authority”. Fitzgerald
  • A present-day dean of a New Zealand law school and a former Prime Minister. Palmer
  • The leading case on sentencing discounts for guilty pleas and a famous mountain. Everest (Mr Hessell’s middle name was Everest.)
  • A 2016 film set in the DC Universe and a group of Legislative Council members appointed in 1950. Suicide Squad
  • The first President of the permanent Court of Appeal and the office of the Crown Solicitor at Timaru. Gresson (Sir Kenneth Gresson, and the law firm Gresson Dorman)

New legal trends for 2019

Out: Elias CJ (dissenting)

In: Winkelmann CJ (for the Court)

 

Out: Russell McVeagh partnership.

In: The independent bar.

 

Out: Queen’s Counsel.

In: King’s Counsel.

 

Out: comcom.govt.nz

In: comcom.com

 

Out: Counsel in Concert

In: Legislative Instruments

 

Out: Palmer J on deterrent sentences for commercial drug offending.

In: Palmer J on the Criminal Proceeds (Recovery) Act 2009.

 

Out: Judicial appointment rumours.

In: Murmuring judges.

 

Out: Champagne flutes in law firm photos.

In: Gang signs in law firm photos.

 

Out: More Dotcom appeals.

In: More Dotcom appeals.

 

Out: E-Discovery.

In: Discovering E.

 

Out: AML suspicious transaction reporting.

In: AML auspicious transaction reporting.

 

Out: Ministry of Justice industrial action.

In: Ministry of Justice industrial inaction.

 

Out: New Zealand Law Society Gender Equality Charter.

In: Violent Feminist Revolution.

 

Out: Clean waterways.

In: Tainted jury pools.

 

Out: Memorial for Chambers J.

In: Tomb of the Unknown Jurist.

 

Out: Alternative dispute resolution.

In: Hipster dispute resolution.

 

Out: McKenzie Friends.

In: McKenzie Friends With Benefits.

7 good opening paragraphs in New Zealand judgments (and 3 kinda okay ones to make it an even 10)

Gurney v Police [2017] NZHC 1581
Gurney v Police [2017] NZHC 1581 (Collins J)
Sands v Executor [2016] NZFC 8970
Sands v Executor of Estate of [B O’Horgan] [2016] NZFC 8970 (Judge L de Jong)
Lowe v Auckland City Council
Lowe v Auckland City Council HC Auckland AP44/93, 12 May 1993 (Hammond J)

 

Siemer v JCC [2013] NZHC 1853 2
Siemer v Judicial Conduct Commissioner [2013] NZHC 1853 (Kós J)
Beer v MSD [2012] NZHC 205
Beer v Ministry of Social Development [2012] NZHC 205 (Kós J)
Daniels v Police [2015] NZHC 358.PNG
Daniels v Police [2015] NZHC 358 (Kós J)
Bicycle
Gallagher v Police HC Auckland A149/99, 5 October 1999 (Chambers J)

 

[2018] NZHC 3088
Australasian Performing Rights Association v 3228 Business Ltd [2018] NZHC 3088 (Palmer J)
Ducks.PNG
Kinney v Police [1971] NZLR 924 (SC) (Woodhouse J)
McDonald.PNG
McDonald v Arrigato Investments Ltd (2000) 14 PRNZ 414 (HC) (Chambers J)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The world’s only jurisprudence joke

A legal positivist, a purposivist, and a realist all work for the highway patrol.

A motorist is driving down a road.  The legal positivist pulls him over and begins writing out a ticket.

“Why on earth am I getting this ticket?” asks the driver.

“You were going 51 km/h in a 50 zone,” explained the positivist.  “The law is very clear and was enacted validly.  I have to give you a ticket.”

The driver rants and raves at the positivist.

“This is ridiculous, bloody revenue gatherers!” he says.  But he ultimately takes the ticket and carries on driving down the road, a little slower than before.

The driver doesn’t get far before the purposivist pulls him over and begins writing a ticket.

“Why on earth am I getting this ticket?” asks the driver.

“You were going 40 km/h in a 50 zone,” explained the purposivist.  “The law is designed to prevent unsafe speeds and you were going so slow that you were unsafe.  I have to give you a ticket.”

The driver gets even angrier at the purposivist.

“I can’t believe you people.  First I drive to fast, now I drive too slow!”  But he ultimately takes the ticket and carries on driving down the road, this time being certain to stick to exactly 50km/h.

The driver doesn’t get far before he is pulled over by the legal realist, who begins writing him a ticket.

“Hey!” said the driver.  “I wasn’t driving too fast, I wasn’t driving too slow.  What on earth are you giving me this ticket for?”

“Well,” said the legal realist.  “You were awfully rude to my colleagues.”

New QCs announcement causes dozens of workplace injuries

The list of new Queen’s Counsel appointments was announced today, causing dozens of workplace injuries.  Lawyers across the country fell off their chairs when they learned the powers that be had finally seen fit to appoint equal numbers of male and female silks.

Speaking, half-paralysed from the floor of her office, one lawyer said “Frankly the fact that the people making this decision managed to meet basic standards of equality came as a complete shock.”

Lawyers suffered injuries including coffee burns from surprised spit-takes and altitude sickness caused by rapidly elevated hopes that something might finally be changing in this godforsaken hellscape of a profession.

The lawyers who will take silk are:

  • Paul Dale
  • Maria Dew
  • Vivienne Crawshaw
  • Belinda Sellars
  • Robert Hollyman
  • James Rapley
  • Anthony Wilding
  • Andru Isac
  • Margaret (Anne) Stevens
  • Fiona Guy Kidd

The appointment of Andru Isac as Queen’s Counsel also contributes to the diversity of the spelling of “Andrew” among senior practitioners.

 

The two problems with rule 2.8

There are lots of things that can be said about r 2.8 of the Lawyers and Conveyancers Act (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008.  It just seems like no-one’s said them.

It’s the rule that turns lawyers into narks.  You have to report potential misconduct about other lawyers to the Law Society.  The rule says this:

2.8 Subject to the obligation on a lawyer to protect privileged communications, a lawyer who has reasonable grounds to suspect that another lawyer has been guilty of misconduct must make a confidential report to the Law Society at the earliest opportunity.

2.8.1 This rule applies despite the lawyer’s duty to protect confidential non-privileged information.

2.8.2 Where a report by a lawyer to the Law Society under rule 2.8 may breach the lawyer’s duty to protect confidential non-privileged information, the lawyer should also advise his or her client of the report.

Not “may” make a report to the Law Society, but “must”.  Which is tough!  Look to your left, now look to your right.  These people are under a professional obligation to betray you!  Although if you have your fingers in the trust account then fair enough.

Misconduct is a higher disciplinary finding than unsatisfactory conduct or s 241(c) negligence.  The two most common categories of misconduct are wilful or reckless breaches of the Rules, and disgraceful conduct (a sort of catch all).  So it is not every infraction that needs to be reported.  It needs to be of decent seriousness.  You also have to have reasonable grounds to suspect, which is not a particularly high standard in the law – it’s more than speculation but akin to saying something is possible.  The Legal Complaints Review Officer decision of UK v VL LCRO 142/2013, 2 September 2016 set out a list of matters to be considered before making a confidential report:

[119] There is a process to be gone through before a lawyer makes confidential report under rules 2.8 or 2.9. The first step rule 2.8 calls for is for the reporting lawyer, by whatever means, to acquire some knowledge. In some cases, that lawyer may acquire knowledge as a result of a duty to be informed, but not in others. Step two: does the knowledge acquired raise a suspicion of misconduct? At this point, a prudent lawyer may well check the Act to see what ss 7 and 12 say, look to the rules for guidance, consider legal authorities, perhaps seek advice and perhaps consider making further inquiry. Step three would involve varying levels of analysis and decision-making depending on what was known or could be found out about the conduct, so that the reporting lawyer can be satisfied that the suspicion raised is based on reasonable grounds.

[120] There may or may not be an easy answer. However, a structured process has a number of advantages. By thinking it through, a reporting lawyer may recognise a range of potential issues and consequences; other lawyers may be spared the inconvenience of having to address groundless complaints; the resources of the regulatory processes may not be diverted into addressing complaints and reports made on the basis of suspicions for which no reasonable ground exists. Some other good reason for making or not making a confidential report might become apparent.

[121] In thinking it through, whether a report is made should be guided by the purposes of the Act. A careful thought process is consistent with the fact that complaints and mandatory reports form part of a lawyer’s professional record, whatever the outcome. Complaints and confidential reports should not be lightly made, and call for a careful exercise of professional judgement when made by lawyers.

Remember this is a rule of professional conduct.  A lawyer that fails to comply with this rule – who fails to make a confidential report when there are reasonable grounds to suspect that another lawyer has been guilty of misconduct – is in breach of the conduct rules themselves.  The lawyer who fails to report may themselves face disciplinary action.

But despite this it barely rates four passing mentions in the Webb et al textbook on Ethics, Professional Responsibility and the Lawyer.  The literature is sparse.  One case, speaking about an equivalent rule in another jurisdiction, says this:

The rationale behind this rule is simple – no one is better suited to recognise a breach of the Rules or better situated to observe one.

Attorney U v Mississippi Bar (1996) 678 So 2D 963 at 976 quoted in GE Dal Pont Lawyers’ Professional Responsibility (5th ed, Thomson Reuters, Australia) at [25.15]

That seems right, and there are good reasons.  The Law Society can only be in so many places.  It aids the regulation of lawyers to have every member of the profession act as eyes and ears against misconduct.  Plus, lawyers already have a professional obligation to uphold the law, and the conduct rules are part of the law, so an obligation to report is, in a way, just an extension of that more fundamental obligation.

But there are two problems with r 2.8 as I see it.  Both stem from the plain wording of the rule.  One is frivolous, the other serious.  Both suggest that the rule could be worded better.  Both suggest that r 2.8 will, in practice, be subject to some twisty interpretation.  This latter point is not ideal – every time we have to say “oh the rule says that, but it doesn’t mean that” is an admission that our law isn’t clear and accessible.  But enough harrumphing.

The first problem is that r 2.8, as worded, will require all lawyers to make a confidential report to the Law Society every time they see something like this or this.  What stronger grounds to suspect that a lawyer has been guilty of misconduct are there than a determination by the Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal?  And every time they do, the Law Society should receive confidential reports from every lawyer who reads the article.

The second problem is more difficult.  Some lawyers sexually harass people with whom they work.  Sometimes they may do even worse than that.  There will be many cases where the lawyer’s conduct falls clearly within one of the definitions of misconduct.  The next thought to add is that a lawyer’s victims in this respect may well be other lawyers.  If that’s the case, then the victim will be under a professional obligation to make a confidential report.  The victim will have more than at least reasonable grounds to suspect; after all, they were there and experienced it.

I don’t feel qualified to offer an opinion on much on this topic.  But it does strike me as intensely unsatisfactory in some cases that a lawyer who is already a victim in that situation would have what little sense of power and control they can muster in the aftermath removed from them by a rule that says they must promptly tell the Law Society.

There are responses to my point.  Abusers should face disciplinary action.  Prosecutorial discretion will mean victims aren’t prosecuted for a breach of r 2.8.  All true.  But a lawyer-victim in that situation has likely suffered enough in a situation like that without their professional obligations turning on them too.

 

A (perhaps partially) complete list of Colin Craig’s recent litigation

Craig diagram
An alternative diagram can be found here.

There are some excellent summaries of the now-many Colin Craig cases.  I like this one and this one in particular.  This post is not those.  Instead, it aims to collate and recap the litigation purely from a legal perspective.  Fina

 

Disclaimers up the wazoo

Below is a list of cases available on legal databases (Westlaw NZ, LexisNexis NZ, and nzlii.org).  Any judgment only gives a small window into the case, and relying on judgments alone cannot give a complete picture.  There will be court minutes, non-published decisions, and jury verdicts (when it comes to defamation) that are not available publicly.  Even the best good-faith reconstruction from judgments may get aspects of the relationships and cases incorrect.  For that reason I am, of course, very happy to correct anything here.  In addition, links to the decisions are provided, and these should be favoured over any very brief summary in this post.  Any inaccuracy through brevity is regretted.

Not included is Mr Craig’s bid to be included in a televised election debate.

 

Colin Craig and Rachel MacGregor

Ms MacGregor brings a claim in the Human Rights Review Tribunal against Mr Craig for breaching the terms of a confidential settlement agreement.  Mr Craig brings a counterclaim seeking a declaration he had validly cancelled the settlement agreement.

  • 27 November 2015 – MacGregor v Craig (application for witness summons) [2015] NZHRRT 51 – determination of Mr Craig’s application for witness summons.  Partially successful – summons issued compelling attendance but not production of documents.
  • 2 March 2016 – MacGregor v Craig [2016] NZHRRT 6, (2016) 11 HRNZ 91 – substantive determination of Ms MacGregor’s claim against Mr Craig for breach of confidential settlement agreement.  MacGregor successful.  Damages awarded to Ms MacGregor.  Mr Craig’s counterclaim rejected.
  • 21 June 2016 – MacGregor v Craig (rescission of confidentiality orders) [2016] NZHRRT 23 – Tribunal decision rescinding confidentiality orders in respect of its substantive decision, at the application of Ms MacGregor, opposed by Mr Craig.
  • 7 September 2016 – MacGregor v Craig (limited extension of confidentiality orders) [2016] NZHRRT 30, (2016) 11 HRNZ 76 – application by Mr Craig that the confidentiality orders around the HRRT decision continue to operate to preserve fair trial rights for Mr Craig in defamation proceeding brought by Mr Williams.  Essentially unsuccessful.

Mr Craig sues Ms MacGregor in defamation and Ms MacGregor brings a counterclaim in defamation.

  • 23 May 2018 – Craig v MacGregor [2018] NZHC 1172 – application for non-party discovery by Mr Craig in respect of documents held by Mr Taylor (Ms MacGregor’s counsellor).  Application declined.
  • 24 September 2018 – two week trial before Hinton J commences.  Decision reserved.

 

Colin Craig and Jordan Williams

Mr Williams sues Mr Craig in defamation and Mr Craig brings a counterclaim in defamation.

  • 29 June 2016 – Williams v Craig [2016] NZHC 1453 – application by Mr Craig for non-party discovery against Ms MacGregor in context of defending defamation claim by Mr Williams.  Mr Craig successful.
  • 12 August 2016 – Williams v Craig [2016] NZHC 1876 – Mr Williams claim for costs against first second defendant (Heslop) for Mr Heslop’s abandoned application for summary judgment.  Court reserves costs until conclusion of proceedings.
  • 30 September 2016 – jury verdict finding in favour of Mr Williams, awarding $1.27 million in damages.
  • 19 October 2016 – Williams v Craig [2016] NZHC 2496, [2016] NZAR 1569 – reasons judgment of Katz J that Mr Craig’s defence of qualified privilege could be considered by the jury in defamation proceedings brought by Mr Williams.
  • 12 April 2017 – Williams v Craig [2017] NZHC 724, [2017] 3 NZLR 215 – Mr Craig applies for setting aside of jury’s verdicts and damages award in defamation proceeding brought by Mr Williams against Mr Craig.  Mr Craig successful.  Damages award set aside. Verdict provisionally set aside if parties do not agree to Court substituting own view on damages.  [Parties do not agree.]
  • 5 March 2018 – Williams v Craig [2018] NZCA 31, [2018] 3 NZLR 1 – appeal and cross-appeal by Mr Williams and Mr Craig relating to jury verdict, liability and Katz J’s rulings following verdict.  Mr Williams’ appeal partially successful resulting in confirmation of liability finding by jury.
  • 4 July 2018 Craig v Williams [2018] NZSC 61 – Supreme Court grants leave to appeal to both Mr Craig and Mr Williams from Court of Appeal decision in [2018] NZCA 31. [Hearing before Supreme Court in September 2018.  Decision pending.]

Mr Craig sues Mr Williams in defamation (separate proceedings to the matters above).

  • 26 September 2018 – Craig v Williams [2018] NZHC 2520 – Mr Williams applies for strike out of Mr Craig’s defamation claim against Mr Williams (defamation claim commenced 29 May 2017).  Mixed success for both parties.  Claim survives with substantial repleading.

See also claims below against Mr Williams and Social Media Consultants Ltd together.

 

Colin Craig and John Stringer

Mr Craig sues Mr Stringer in defamation.  Mr Stringer sues Mr Craig in defamation.  Mr Stringer also had a counterclaim but abandoned that due to his other separate defamation proceedings.

  • 4 March 2016 – Craig v Stringer [2016] NZHC 362 – application by Mr Craig to strike out defence to defamation by Mr Stringer and counterclaim by Mr Stringer.  Mr Craig partially successful unsuccessful.  Mr Stringer given opportunity to remedy pleadings.  Stringer abandons counterclaim as already has separate defamation proceedings.
  • 22 April 2016 – Craig v Stringer [2016] NZHC 768 – application by Mr Craig for non-party discovery from Vodafone.  Mr Craig unsuccessful.
  • 22 August 2016 – Craig v Stringer [2016] NZHC 1956 – pre-trial decision determining a range of procedural issues  in defamation action brought by Mr Craig (discovery, amend pleadings, further interrogatories, strike out a defence).  Mixed success for each party.
  • 23 November 2016 – Craig v Stringer [2016] NZHC 2808 – application by Mr Stringer seeking review of Associate Judge Matthews’ refusal to grant discovery orders sought, and application by Mr Stringer to have defamation case determined by jury.  Mixed success.  Discovery granted.  Trial to be judge-alone.
  • 19 December 2017 – Craig v Stringer [2017] NZHC 3221 – application by Mr Stringer for recall of judgment granting orders by consent.  Mr Stringer succeeds in Court modifying its findings.  Ultimate verdict remains broadly in Mr Craig’s favour.

 

Colin Craig and Social Media Consultants Ltd & Jordan Williams

Mr Craig sues Social Media Consultants Ltd and Mr Williams for breach of copyright.

  • 6 December 2016 – Craig v Social Media Consultants Ltd and Williams [2016] NZDC 24911, [2017] DCR 611 – application by Social Media Consultants Ltd and Mr Williams for strike out and summary judgment in respect of Mr Craig’s claims of breach of copyright.  Claims variously struck out and awarded summary judgment in favour of defendants.
  • 9 February 2017 – Craig v Social Media Consultants Ltd and Williams [2017] NZDC 2366 – decision of District Court awarding costs to Social Media Consultants Ltd and Mr Williams following their successful application for strike out and summary judgment in Mr Craig’s claim of breach of copyright.
  • 5 April 2017 – Craig v Social Media Consultants Ltd and Williams [2017] NZDC 7007, [2017] DCR 835 – Social Media Consultants Ltd and Mr Williams apply for indemnity costs following strike out and summary judgment of Mr Craig’s claim for breach of copyright.  Social Media Consultants Ltd and Mr Williams successful.
  • 14 June 2017 – Craig v Social Media Consultants Ltd and Williams [2017] NZHC 1315 – Mr Craig’s appeal to High Court following District Court decision striking out and granting summary judgment on his claims against Social Media Consultants Ltd and Mr Williams for breach of copyright.  Mr Craig successful in having claims reinstated.
  • 12 July 2017 – Craig v Social Media Consultants Ltd and Williams [2017] NZHC 1613 – costs judgment of Woolford J following decision reinstating Mr Craig’s claims of breach of copyright against Social Media Consultants Ltd and Mr Williams.

See also claims against Mr Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd together.

 

Colin Craig and Cameron Slater & Social Media Consultants Ltd

Mr Craig sues Mr Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd in defamation and Mr Slater brings a counterclaim in defamation.

  • 10 April 2017 – Craig v Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd [2017] NZHC 740 – Mr Craig applies for inspection of computers held by Mr Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd.  Mr Craig largely successful.
  • 12 April 2017 – Craig v Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd [2017] NZHC 735, [2017] NZAR 637 – Mr Craig applies for direction that his defamation claim against Mr Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd be tried judge-alone.  Mr Craig successful.
  • 4 May 2017 – Craig v Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd [2017] NZHC 874, [2017] NZAR 649, (2017) 23 PRNZ 524 – Mr Craig applies for permission for McKenzie Friend in defamation claim against Mr Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd.  Mr Craig successful.
  • May-June 2017 – defamation trial before Toogood J.
  • 19 October 2018 – Craig v Slater and Social Media Consultants Ltd [2018] NZHC 2712 – substantive determination of defamation claim and counterclaim.  Mixed success for all parties.  No damages awarded.

 

Colin Craig and Jacqueline Stiekema

Mr Craig sues Ms Stiekema in defamation.

  • 29 March 2017 – Craig v Stiekema [2017] NZHC 614, [2017] NZAR 633 – application by Mr Craig to transfer his defamation proceeding against Ms Stiekema to the District Court.  Mr Craig successful.
  • 31 July 2017 – Craig v Stiekema [2017] NZDC 15914 – application by Ms Stiekema to strike out Mr Craig’s claim in defamation.  Ms Stiekema successful.
  • 1 September 2017 – Craig v Stiekema [2017] NZDC 19431 – awarding costs to Ms Stiekema following Ms Stiekema’s successful application for strike out of Mr Craig’s claim for defamation.
  • 27 April 2018 – Craig v Stiekema [2018] NZHC 838, [2018] NZAR 1003 – appeal by Mr Craig against District Court decision striking out his defamation claim against Ms Stiekema.  Mr Craig successful and claim reinstated.
  • 11 September 2018 Craig v Stiekema [2018] NZHC 2389 – costs determination of Mr Craig’s successful appeal to High Court against District Court decision striking out his defamation claim.  Costs awarded to Mr Craig.