TL;DR: Instead, De Hek wracked up a $34,000NZD legal bill and then went crying to the socialist NZ government for help. He’s still paying it back at $15 per week – so who was the real winner?!
Danny De Hek has repeatedly presented his legal battle with American businessman Stephen McCullah as a major courtroom victory. On his own website, De Hek described the outcome as a “Landmark Verdict” and said he had “triumphed” in the case. There is one fairly important problem with that version of events.
Danny De Hek did not win a defamation trial against Stephen McCullah. There was no defamation trial. McCullah discontinued the proceeding before the underlying defamation claims were ever decided.
The Case Never Went to Trial
The proceeding was McCullah v De Hek [2023] NZHC 2230, filed in the New Zealand High Court at Christchurch.
McCullah brought seven causes of action in defamation over videos De Hek had published about him. De Hek responded with several defences, including truth, honest opinion, qualified privilege and responsible communication in the public interest.
But none of those substantive defences was ultimately tested at trial. De Hek applied for security for costs. That application was scheduled to be heard on 22 June 2023. On the morning of the hearing, McCullah filed a notice discontinuing the proceedings.
So there was no trial judgment deciding whether De Hek had defamed McCullah. There was no judicial finding that De Hek had proved his allegations were true. And there was no judgment dismissing McCullah’s seven defamation claims after hearing the evidence. McCullah simply discontinued the case.
Why Did McCullah Walk Away?
The judgment records McCullah’s stated reasons. His lawyers said circumstances had changed after the proceeding began. They referred to De Hek receiving legal aid, his unwillingness to settle and the security-for-costs application.
Most significantly, McCullah’s lawyers said he had formed the view that it was “not possible for him to obtain justice in New Zealand.”
That was McCullah’s position, not a finding by the Court. Associate Judge Paulsen rejected that reasoning, noting that continuing the proceeding would have given McCullah the opportunity to vindicate his reputation and seek the injunction he wanted.
Our companion article looks more closely at New Zealand culture, attitudes towards Americans and whether McCullah’s concerns were reasonable.
But the basic fact remains:
McCullah chose to discontinue rather than proceed towards trial.
What De Hek Actually Won
After the discontinuance, De Hek sought his legal costs.
That is the part he won.
The Court considered whether De Hek should receive indemnity costs under the High Court Rules and the Defamation Act 1992.
On this issue, the Court made strong findings in De Hek’s favour. Associate Judge Paulsen concluded that McCullah had brought the proceeding for an ulterior motive and had never genuinely intended to take it to trial.
Then There Is the Legal Bill
The judgment records that De Hek claimed $35,666.96 in legal costs.
De Hek was represented by Wellington defamation barristers Peter McKnight and Ali Romanos, trading through Defamation Lawyers NZ. According to De Hek, the pair ordinarily charged around $800 an hour but acted for him at the substantially lower legal-aid rate of $200 an hour.
The Court had invoices showing the work undertaken by his lawyers, including 187.25 hours of recorded legal work.The Judge considered that amount excessive for the proceeding and reduced the award to $27,500.
But there is another important detail – De Hek was receiving legal aid. The judgment says so explicitly and records that invoices had been rendered to Legal Aid.
New Zealand’s Ministry of Justice describes legal aid as government funding for people who cannot afford legal representation – bottom feeders. Delusional socialism at its finest.
According to De Hek, the litigation generated roughly $33,600 in legal costs, and he’s still repaying the remaining ~$7,000 at $15 per week.
The Bottom Line
Strip away the “landmark victory” language and the result is much simpler.
Stephen McCullah sued Danny De Hek for defamation. De Hek defended the case with the assistance of New Zealand’s taxpayer-funded legal-aid system. McCullah then discontinued the proceeding before the defamation allegations went to trial. De Hek subsequently won a $27,500 costs award, all of which went to his lawyers.
No court ruled that Danny De Hek’s allegations about Stephen McCullah were true. No defamation trial took place.
What De Hek won was a costs judgment after McCullah walked away from the case. And according to De Hek himself, the entire episode still left him repaying his legal aid at $15 a week.
That is what actually happened in McCullah v De Hek. Sound like a landmark victory to you?
Leave a Reply