Landmark Verdict: de Hek Triumphs with $27,500 Indemnity Costs – Unraveling the McCullah vs. de Hek

Stephen McCullah receives a scolding judgement from the judge demanding to pay $27,500 for Danny de Hek a.k.a The Crypto Ponzi Scheme Avenger legal cost.

See the video https://youtu.be/hvk_mBa5wW8

To downloadable links to the PDF file and all parties associated including the video check out the blog at https://www.dehek.com/general/ponzi-scheme-scamalerts/landmark-verdict-de-hek-triumphs-with-27500-indemnity-costs-unraveling-the-mccullah-vs-de-hek/

In the court judgment delivered by Associate Judge Paulsen on August 17, 2023, in the New Zealand High Court, Stephen Andrew James McCullah, the plaintiff, had brought a defamation claim against Danny James de Hek (first defendant) and DANNY : DE HEK LIMITED (second defendant). McCullah, an entrepreneurial CEO in the finance and investment sector residing in the United States, alleged that de Hek, who was involved in dropshipping electronics and providing web-hosting services, had posted defamatory YouTube videos about him.

TIME STAMPS / CHAPTERS

Introduction 00:00:00
Summary of document 00:15:00
Joshua Pietras 00:19:45
Defamation Lawyers Ali and Peter 00:20:30
Ben Hood (Senior Lawyer) 00:21:03
[1] Plaintiff 00:22:52
[2] Defendant 00:23:16
[3] Claims 00:23:42
[4] Defences 00:25:56
[5] Application 00:26:25
[6] Seeks Costs. 00:26:47
[7] Legal Aid 00:27:48
[8] Costs Claim 00:29:46
[9] Plaintiff Opposes Costs 00:30:02
[10] Costs are Discretionary 00:34:27
Media Release 00:31:09
Court Documents 00:31:22
[11] Cost Principles 00:35:47
[12] Costs on Discontinuance 00:37:00
[13] Indemnity Costs 00:37:30
[14] Gagging Writ 00:38:11
[15] Defamation Act 00:39:07
[16] Indemnity Costs Claim 00:40:20
[17] Deems Vexatious if NO Trial Intent 00:40:50
[18] Claims for Damages, Excessive Claims 00:41:19
[19] Michaels Case 00:42:21
[20] Indemnity Costs Application 00:43:18
[21] Michaels Case Precedent 00:44:47
[22] Intent to Proceed 00:45:11
[23] Quick Discontinuance 00:46:06
[24] Strong Security Application 00:46:29
[25] Suppressing Publications 00:48:05
[26] No Trial Intent 00:48:30
[27] No Intent 00:52:56
Stephen Mccullah Profile 00:56:15
Stephen Mccullah Recordings 00:57:54
[28] Changing Circumstances 01:02:24
[29] Excessive Claims 01:03:21
[30] Amount Claimed 01:04:50
[31] Smear Campaign 01:06:12
Videos Stephen Mccullah Produced 01:07:03
[32] No Evidence 01:12:20
[33] Smear Campaign 01:13:27
[34] Ulterior Motive 01:13:50
[35] Plaintiff Owes 01:14:05
[36] Indemnity Costs Reasonable 01:15:30
[37] Quantum Not Challenged 01:15:50
[38] Excessive Time Charged 01:16:52
Be A Whistleblower 01:18:00
[39] Difference from Scale Costs 01:20:52
[40] Scale Costs Assessment 01:21:23
[41] Claim Exceeds Reasonableness 01:25:15
[42] Reasonable Indemnity Costs: $27,500 01:24:38
[43] Awarded: $27,500! 01:25:00

Joshua Pietras (LLB (HONS), BSC, LLM 01:26:30
Stephen Mccullah Playlist 01:27:40
Conclusion 01:32:35
The plaintiff sought damages, injunctive relief, and exemplary damages against the defendants. There were seven causes of action for defamation in the statement of claim, with varying amounts of compensatory damages and injunctive relief. (3.8 Million) The defendants filed defenses including truth, honest opinion, qualified privilege, and responsible public interest communication. The first defendant also applied for security for costs.

However, shortly before the security for costs hearing, the plaintiff discontinued the proceeding against both defendants. The first defendant sought indemnity costs, arguing that the plaintiff had no intention of proceeding to trial and that the proceeding was brought for an ulterior motive. The plaintiff contended that no costs should be awarded, but if they were, they should be scale costs.

Associate Judge Paulsen reviewed relevant rules and legislation, including sections of the Defamation Act 1992, and determined that the plaintiff had indeed brought the proceeding with an ulterior motive and never intended to take it to trial. Therefore, the first defendant was entitled to indemnity costs.

Considering the actual costs claimed and the scale costs applicable, the judge concluded that an award of $27,500 in indemnity costs was reasonable under the circumstances.

In summary, the court judgment delivered by Associate Judge Paulsen on August 17, 2023, awarded the first defendant indemnity costs of $27,500 due to the plaintiff’s ulterior motive in bringing the defamation proceeding and his lack of intention to take it to trial.