A woman who made serious false allegations about her ex on social media has been ordered to pay him $200,000 for the reputational damage they caused.

Nga Atawhainga Adrianna Creagh has also been banned from repeating, or making allegations that come close to repeating, those claims against Brendon Ngarino Te Waati.

According to a High Court judgment, the pair had a brief relationship that ended in 2021.

Four years later, Creagh made four posts on her Facebook page, which had more than 2000 followers, making serious allegations against Te Waati.

Te Waati is a holistic wellness practitioner working within Te Ao Māori and founder of Te Whare Āio, an organisation that delivers wānanga and seminars on Māori wellbeing practices nationally and internationally.

In the first two posts, Creagh tagged Te Aho Matua, an organisation that runs Māori language immersion schools.

Te Waati provided evidence to the court of third parties spreading the allegations.

He said the posts had an "almost overnight effect" on his work. Monthly revenue of his trading company, Māori Movement, fell to zero and remained there.

He said a long-standing client cancelled forward bookings for 24 wānanga he was scheduled to deliver, citing the allegations against Te Waati.

His attendance at four national and four international seminars was also cancelled following the posts.

"In Mr Te Waati's words, 'work has dried up'," Justice Jane Anderson said in her September High Court judgment.

Te Waati tried to stop Creagh from making defamatory comments and secure a retraction through a formal request from his lawyers last October.

Creagh took down the Facebook posts and said she would not post certain further allegations, but did not make a statement retracting those already made.

Nor did she return an undertaking proposed by Te Waati's lawyers confirming she would not make such statements.

Documents served, ignored

Justice Anderson said it initially appeared Creagh did not appreciate what was meant by a retraction.

Te Waati's lawyers clarified the request, to which Creagh responded that she would not be prepared to make such a statement because it would allegedly make her out to be a liar.

Te Waati issued proceedings seeking summary judgment in February this year.

Creagh was served with documents but ignored the proceedings until June, when she emailed Te Waati's lawyers, well after the date for filing a notice of opposition, saying she intended to defend the claim but was "entirely judgment-proof".

Justice Anderson said Creagh did nothing further until she sought to file documents after 5pm on the Thursday of Matariki weekend.

They included a draft affidavit with a letter from her social worker, an unsigned notice of opposition and an unsigned interlocutory application for leave to file the notice of opposition out of time.

She did not copy in Te Waati's lawyers. The registry rejected the documents for filing at 9.35am on the following Monday.

Justice Anderson said Creagh identified herself from the public gallery part way through Te Waati's submissions at a hearing into the matter on 16 July this year.

She sought an adjournment and leave to file her opposition out of time.

Creagh's application was declined and the summary judgment application was not defended.

Justice Anderson said Creagh published four posts that remained online for about two weeks and were read by third parties.

Because of the way social media operated, there was also the "grapevine effect", where allegations were spread more widely through other posts and word of mouth.

Each of the four posts identified Te Waati. The first included a photograph of him and identified him by his name, "Ngarino Te Waati", and nickname, "Beez".

The second, third and fourth posts, made on the same day, further identified him by reference to his ex-wife's name.

Justice Anderson said even when Creagh referred to Te Waati by using two bee emojis and referring to his ex-wife, a subsequent Instagram post confirmed this was understood to be a reference to Te Waati.

"The pleaded imputations are defamatory in that they lower the reputation of Mr Te Waati in the estimation of right-thinking members of society," Justice Anderson said in her judgment.

She said few accusations affect a person's standing in the community more than those made against Te Waati.

'No arguable defence'

A defamatory statement was presumed false in the absence of an evidential basis for the defence of truth.

Justice Anderson said the only conceivable defences were affirmative defences for which Creagh had raised no evidential foundation.

The judge said there was no evidence to suggest Te Waati was anything like what was claimed. A complaint Creagh raised was thoroughly investigated, and no action was taken.

Justice Anderson said there was also no arguable honest opinion defence for two reasons: the imputations were presented as facts, not opinions, and the underpinning facts were false.

Nor could the defence of qualified privilege or responsible communication in the public interest succeed because there was no qualified privilege to air allegations publicly, only to report them to the proper authorities, the court said.

"Responsible communication similarly cannot succeed because the communication was not made responsibly. It was false, sensationalist and no opportunity was given to Mr Te Waati to respond, let alone have that response fairly reported," Justice Anderson said.

"Further, there has since been no retraction."

She said, based on the evidence before her, Te Waati had proved that Creagh defamed him and that she had no arguable defence.

General damages of $200,000 were awarded to compensate Te Waati for harm to his reputation, vindicate his good name and provide consolation for a wrong done, taking into account the distress, hurt and humiliation caused by the defamation.

Neither party responded to requests for comment.