Craig ordered to pay costs

Colin Craig has been ordered to pay costs after an attempt by him to sue an ex-employee for defamation was  rejected by the Court.

Stuff on 31 July: Judge throws out Colin Craig’s bid to sue former employee for defamation

Former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig has been dealt another blow at court, with a judge throwing out his attempt to sue a former employee for defamation.

Judge Gary Harrison said at the Auckland District Court it would be a waste of time to let the embattled businessman proceed with his attempted legal action.

“I have serious misgivings that it would be appropriate to keep these proceedings alive,” Harrison wrote, in a decision released on Monday.

Craig claimed he had been defamed by Jacky Stiekema, who previously worked as a trust accounts manager for his company Centurion Management Ltd, and he sought $240,000 in damages.

Judge Harrison concluded it was highly unlikely court proceedings would prove Stiekema wrong in her denials, and said the Facebook comments in themselves did not warrant defamation proceedings.

He wrote that only one other of Stringer’s 200 friends responded to the message thread, and Stiekema’s remarks would have had little impact.

“I regard the effect they would have on Mr Craig’s reputation as minimal,” he said.

“The costs associated with a trial that would occupy the order of five days, perhaps more, are simply not justified.”

RNZ yesterday: Colin Craig ordered to pay $17k in costs to woman he tried to sue

Former Conservative Party leader Colin Craig has been ordered to pay more than $17,000 in costs to a woman he tried to sue for defamation.

In a decision released today, Judge Harrison awarded Ms Stiekema $17,600 in costs.

Whale Oil has posted Colin Craig smacked with costs, used law suit for “ulterior motive”

What Colin Craig did to Mrs. Stiekema is awful. He is out for vengeance and flailing away at anyone who dares speak the truth about him.

I agree that what Craig tried to do here was awful.

I also think this is awfully hypocritical of Cameron Slater, given how much vengeful flailing he has been associated with in the courts, as unsuccessfully as Craig was here.

This unsuccessful flailing by Craig should serve as a deterrence to anyone trying to use the courts to shut truth telling up.

The courts are starting to wise up to his multiple law suits and to why he is doing it.

That reminds me of someone else.

10 Comments

  1. Tipene

     /  September 2, 2017

    It will go to appeal, most likely be overturned, and then Stiekema will be up for even more money.

    Boy, being mates with John Stringer is bloody costly, isn’t it?

    • Albert

       /  September 2, 2017

      Ever the loyal lickspittle aren’t you Tipene?

      Being mates with Colin is expensive too, especially when you are joined to law suits for involvement in defaming people like [Deleted, trying to identify people is not allowed here. I suspect you wouldn’t be keen on me implying your identity ‘Albert’. PG]

      • It’s kind of ironic that you have commented here Albert, considering this comment from you in June:

        I think you will find defamation doesn’t work that way. The last few months have been a free for all in your comments against Slater….

        I wouldn’t be surprised if Slater didn’t task that mouth breather Belt to collect everything ready for when he beats Colin.

        Much and all as I loathe Slater, he is that cunning to sit an wait and collect months of data. The publisher is Yournz not the commenters.

        I’m not a lawyer but Slater is nasty when cornered…and if he has money then I doubt he’d hold back going after someone like you who is a soft target.

        Freedom of speech Rights etc won’t stop him…and he will grind you down. He’s that much of an assholes.

        Sounds a bit like how Slater describes Craig’s abuse of the courts.

        • Sitting and waiting to ‘collect months of data’ suggests no concern over the effects of what has been said. Any blogger who knows how things work knows that if they think they have been defamed they take immediate steps to get comments removed.

          Sitting and collecting ‘data’ suggests more of a vengeful motive to me.

      • Tipene

         /  September 2, 2017

        The [deleted] uses “loyalty” and “lickspittle” in the same accusation, which just tells me that “Albert” doesn’t know the meaning of either word.

        “Slater with money”………….hmmm………….yet to see that combination.

        “Slater with begging bowl”? Yes, seen that.

        “Slater overinflating readership of his blog”: Yes, seen that too.

        [Deleted – don’t make assertions like that without evidence. I’m not aware of evidence of that. PG]

        “Slater ever relevant outside his own ego echo chamber”: Yeah, Nah.

  2. Patzcuaro

     /  September 2, 2017

    You have to wonder how Craig made any money as a businessman, he seems to spend it as there is no tomorrow.

    This trait of being very narrowly focussed, if you get it just right in business, must be useful but things could equally rapidly turn to custard if you get it slightly wrong.

    At the moment he just seems to be digging a deeper hole.

    You can see certain similarities here between Craig & Banks, they are both blinkered and very stubborn. Obviously works in the right circumstances.

    • Patzcuaro

       /  September 2, 2017

      His lawyers have certainly hit the jackpot dare I say from a jackass.

      • Kitty Catkin

         /  September 2, 2017

        Oh hahaha, the wit !!!

        Let’s hope that the music has stopped in this game of Musical Courtcases.