In summing up, Justice Karen Clark told the jury to put aside any sympathies they might feel for any of those concerned or any political views they might have.
She said if the jury decided damages were required, they should assess what was "fair and reasonable" for both the Hagamans and Little but did not need to consider what was affordable for Little.
She said they should not try to compare the case with other damages awards in defamation cases.
The jury will also have to decide if Little will benefit from the defence of qualified privilege that Justice Clark ruled applied to all the statements the Hagamans are suing on.
She said that privilege applied where a person had a moral, social, or legal duty to make the comments they had - Little had claimed he had a moral duty as Leader of the Opposition to hold the Government to account and the Government was his target.
However, Justice Clark said the jury could decide Little had lost that privilege if he had either been motivated predominantly by ill-will toward Earl or Lani Hagaman in his comments, or had improperly taken advantage of the privilege.
She told the jury it was the Hagamans' job to prove either of those had happened, referring to their lawyer Richard Fowler's argument that Little had paid little regard to the Hagamans because they were National Party donors, had made no attempt to check with the Hagamans before speaking publicly and use of language such as "stinks to high heaven" and "murky."
