Earl Hagaman's wife denied chance to take defamation case against Andrew Little to Supreme Court

Earl Hagaman, with wife Lani in 2014. Photo / Brett Phibbs

Earl Hagaman's widow has been denied the chance to take her husband's defamation case against former Labour leader Andrew Little to the Supreme Court.

A High Court trial earlier last year came to a close with the jurors unable to reach a verdict on several of the claims against Little.

The jury was considering six separate incidents which hotelier Earl Hagaman and his wife Lani claimed were defamatory of them - one was a press release and the others comments Little made in media interviews.

They related to a $100,000 donation from Earl Hagaman to the National Party in 2014 and a hotel management contract at the Matavai resort in Niue for the Hagaman's Scenic Circle Group which was awarded a month later.

The jury found by a majority verdict that Little had defamed Earl Hagaman in one instance - an interview in a 1 News broadcast - but was unable to decide whether Little had ceded his defence of qualified privilege so did not go on to consider damages.

It found by majority verdict that another claim was not defamatory and another was defamatory, but not of Hagaman. It was unable to decide whether the remaining three instances were defamatory.

Lani Hagaman had also claimed she was defamed on the same six occasions, but the jury found by majority verdict that she was not.

Though Hagaman has died since the trial, Lani Hagaman is pursuing a retrial on his behalf.

She took a case to the Court of Appeal, where the parties argued whether the challenge could survive Mr Hagaman's death.

The Court of Appeal ruled that it did not and Lani Hagaman then sought leave to take the case to the Supreme Court.

Justices Sian Elias, Mark O'Regan and Ellen France, in a decision released this afternoon, declined to take the case.

Lani Hagaman, in applying for leave, said that the law should be interpreted to allow appeals in defamation cases because the challenge becomes a cause of action vested for the benefit of the deceased's estate.

"We do not see this argument as having sufficient prospects of success to justify the grant of leave," the three judges said.

Hagaman's representatives were ordered to pay $2500 in costs to Little.