Man wins $200,000 defamation case over ex-partner's Facebook posts

A High Court judge has ordered a woman to pay a former partner $200,000 for damaging his reputation with false claims on Facebook.

Brendon Ngarino Te Waati, a holistic wellness practitioner and founder of Te Whare Āio, won the case against Nga Atawhainga Adrianna Creagh. The pair had a brief relationship that ended in 2021, but Creagh made four defamatory posts about him in October 2025.

Creagh's Facebook page had more than 2,000 followers at the time. She tagged Te Aho Matua, an organization that runs Māori language immersion schools, in the first two posts. Te Waati told the court that the posts had an almost overnight effect on his business. The monthly revenue of his trading company, Māori Movement, dropped to zero and stayed there. A long-standing client cancelled forward bookings for 24 wānanga, or seminars, citing the allegations. His attendance at four national and four international events was also cancelled.

Justice Jane Anderson noted that work for Te Waati had dried up. He tried to resolve the matter out of court last October through a formal request from his lawyers for a retraction. Creagh removed the posts and agreed not to make certain further allegations, but she did not issue a formal statement retracting the original claims. She also did not sign an undertaking confirming she would not make similar statements in the future.

The judge found that Creagh initially did not understand what a retraction required. When Te Waati's lawyers clarified the request, she said she would not make the statement because it would make her look like a liar. Te Waati filed for summary judgment in February this year. Creagh was served with the documents but ignored the proceedings until June. She then emailed his lawyers after the deadline to file an opposition, stating she intended to defend the claim but was entirely judgment-proof.

Creagh later attempted to file documents after 5 p.m. on the Thursday of the Matariki weekend. The filing included a draft affidavit, a letter from her social worker, and unsigned notices. The registry rejected the documents at 9:35 a.m. the following Monday. On July 16, Creagh identified herself from the public gallery during Te Waati's submissions. She asked for an adjournment and permission to file her opposition late, but the judge denied both requests.

The court determined that the four posts remained online for about two weeks and were read by third parties. The judge described a grapevine effect where the allegations spread through other posts and word of mouth. The first post included a photograph of Te Waati and identified him by his name and nickname, Beez. The next three posts, made on the same day, identified him by referencing his ex-wife's name. Even when Creagh used two bee emojis, a subsequent Instagram post confirmed that people understood the reference was to Te Waati.

Justice Anderson ruled that the imputations lowered Te Waati's reputation in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. She stated that few accusations affect a person's standing in the community more than the ones made against Te Waati. The defamatory statements were presumed false because Creagh provided no evidential basis for the defense of truth. The judge found no arguable defense of honest opinion because the claims were presented as facts rather than opinions, and the underlying facts were false.

The court also rejected the defense of responsible communication in the public interest. Justice Anderson said the communication was not made responsibly because it was false and sensationalist, and Te Waati was not given an opportunity to respond. She noted that there has been no retraction to this day. The $200,000 in general damages was awarded to compensate Te Waati for the harm to his reputation and the distress caused by the defamation. Creagh was also banned from repeating or making claims close to the original allegations. Neither party responded to requests for comment.