Clarkson seeking costs
January 31st, 2006 at 9:29 am by David FarrarBob Clarkson is seeking $80,000 in costs from Winston Peters over his failed electoral petition. I will be surprised if Peters does not have to pay some costs, but am unsure how much are likely. There hasn’t been an unsucessful electoral petition for a while so I am not sure what proportion the last petitioner had to pay.
No tag for this post.
January 31st, 2006 at 9:52 am
It will be settled out of court, no need to make a big issue out of it.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 10:40 am
Cadmus – I don’t believe anyone was.
Of course, given that Clarkson doesn’t need costs, he may be willing to risk the possibility of their not being as much he might settle for the possibility of a court judgment calling Peters vexatious and frivolous
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 11:21 am
I do not see why Clarkson should be out of pocket on this. There were no issues of public importance raised. This was a case where Peters was challenging Clarkson’s right to promote himself aginst a huge advantage Petrs has. Amy challenge against Peters is a lop sided affair due to Peters high name recognition. Yet Peters claimed that somehow Clarkson was corrupt in his advertising practices. Well tough luck Peters. There are no major legal issues here and Peters should be ordered to pay the lot.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 12:34 pm
If I was Peters, I’d been a little more nervous about this part of the story:
Mr Clarkson also told NZPA yesterday he was now considering other legal action against Mr Peters following comments he read in the Herald on Sunday.
He was instructing his lawyers to look into it, he said.
“I’m not a vicious guy… but he’s got to learn. He’s a bit of a motormouth,” Mr Clarkson said.
Peters doesn’t have the best record when it comes to defamation suits, and I do sincerely think Clarkson wasn’t the only person defamed in the fellatio-like “interview” with Deborah Conddington that appeared in the Herald on Sunday – an (unintentional) comic masterpiece, BTW.
Still, as he’s apparently going to be bringing five defamation suits himself in the near future – according to the interview – and may be facing a sixth from Clarkson, the courts may become the hottest comedy clubs in town before long.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 2:08 pm
Cadmus – I hope the RT HON Winston Peters will be paying any of the costs out of his own pocket, as it was indeed his “fat mouth” that caused the issue in the fist instance. Why does it need to be settled out of court as Mr Clarkson from what I have seen of the man would rather have the details of payment open for public scrutiny and not used as a political BS platform, as Winston has done so often in the past.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Culma, the costs could be meet by the taxpayer/
Vote:Others may have more info.
January 31st, 2006 at 2:42 pm
Winnie the Peters should be paying for this himself his allegations were baseless, not sure of his facts before wasting more taxpayers money, no wonder Micheal Cullin has to skim so much off the top.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Culma, I know some cases are paid by the Crown!
Vote:DPF will know.
I remember Muldoon used the public kitty a few times when he got in strife.
January 31st, 2006 at 3:11 pm
As a rule of thumb a sucessful litigant is entitled to 2/3rd of his actual reasonable costs. This can vary depending on amounts involved, conduct of the parties etc. In the final analysis costs are at the discretion of the Court.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Peters will not get any state funding of his costs. He was not acting as a Minister but in his role as the losing candidate in an election.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 3:51 pm
I hope the tax payer dosent have to pay for Peters’ bullshit.I thought Margret Wilson was the queen of the sour grapes , now we have a new one.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 4:32 pm
DPF:
So, if the five suits he alluded to in the HoS are against Tracy Watkin, Fran O’Sullivan – who he spend considerable space slagging off in the HoS – and three other journalists critical of his performance as Acting Foreign Minister, the the taxpayer cops the bill for the lot? Yay…
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 5:03 pm
Peters made a full on serious allegation against Bob Clarkson during the election campaign that went right to Bob’s character. I think Bob has got it cold. Peters who is not a man of substance will learn that you do not make baseless serious allegations against someone who is rich. I look forward to Bob bankrupting Peters.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 6:14 pm
Peters didnt make any allegtions, against Clarkson, he merely questioned his election spending, as he is entitled to do, and essentially the judges decided Clarkson had overspent but they came up with a never before used formula for election spending ,’proportionality’, and applied a ‘random’ number to it so as to bring Clarksons adjusted spending to just below the $20,000 and hence deny Peters his victory.
Vote:Perhaps a different judge will hear the application for costs, and may in his/her infinite wisdom use the ageless legal expression,
‘just because you were found not guilty doesnt mean you didnt do it’
January 31st, 2006 at 7:03 pm
Costs in these cases are governed by section 250(1) of the Electoral Act:
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 7:17 pm
Quiz for today can anyone (without referring to past media script) name the interestingly clad red head that made allegations against Bob Clarkson prior to the election (not the testicle comments), I was going to say something nasty about her efforts but looking at the get up she wore on national TV, it would be a very cheap shot.
Cadmus – if DPF is correct then I only have 1 thing to say on Winnies behalf – BUGGER.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 9:46 pm
Oh no Mr Who you had better google what Peters has said about Bob. It was a direct and baseless remark that went right to Bob’s character and reputation. Bob has got him cold and a good thing too. Bob has got his dander up over Peters and I do not think a poor man who is reckless with his tongue stands much of a chance against a rich man who is determined to prosecute the prick.
Vote:January 31st, 2006 at 10:02 pm
Mr Who:
1) First, I suggest you re-read the HoS interview and tell me Peters wasn’t making a personal attack on Clarkson. I’m sure Bob Clarkson is seeking expert advice, but I certainly interpreted one paritcular section as a not very veiled allegation that Clarkson and his campaign team lied their arses off to the Electoral Commission and again under oath.
2) I’m really getting tired of this little formulation that three High Court judges “essentially [...] decided Clarkson had overspent”. Um, no they didn’t otherwise we’d be talking about the upcoming Tauranga by-election. It’s quite obvious you don’t agree with their decision, but I really wish the Winston Peters fan would rejoin the reality-based community sometime this century.
Vote:February 1st, 2006 at 11:30 am
Culma, I take it your not going to put in a donation to help the Rt Hon Winston Peters?
Vote:February 1st, 2006 at 12:47 pm
Cadmus – Thought about it briefly,(very briefly) but I can’t see myself wasting money on a lost cause, as I said on previous occasions this is Winnies last throw of the dice, even his partners in crime, (sorry let me rephrase) the Govt, have treated him with less respect than accorded to Lepers in the 1800′s, and looking at the way things are panning out for our Winston, it is almost heartbreaking to see a once well respected figure being treated in this manner. Resembles the last dieing throws of battleship being sent to the bottom. Sad way to end a long and colourful career.
Vote: