Nick Smith’s financial battles
March 24th, 2008 at 12:26 pm by David FarrarThe SST reports on how an American multinational timber company, Osmose, is suing Nick Smith and a local scientist for $15 million each. Nick has already had $300,000 in legal costs and it is likely his bills will reach $500,000. It is worth remembering this is costs to be met from after tax income. On an MPs salary, take home pay is only around $71,000 a year, so the cost is more than the entire take home pay for seven years.
The company of course has the right to take legal action if it thinks comments made were defamatory and hurt their business. They have to prove actual lost income to succeed (so I understand). But if as reported, the company is refusing any offer to settle, you wonder if the motivation is to destroy Nick and Dr Wakeling rather than have the record set straight and receive compensation.
Nick has been sued before – ironically for the first time by the Exclusive Brethren. But all the other cases have been won or settled.
Tags: defamation, Nick Smith, Osmose
March 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
This is bullshit when even if you are right you are forced to bankrupt yourself as you can’t afford the defence.
There should be a law were both legal teams only have a fixed budget to sue/defend.
In the summary DPF you missed out that the company had already been found guilty of breaching competition rules, so I will make the assumption that they don’t play fair.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
Hell, for a brain-dead, etc, etc, card-carrying leftie like me this is a really difficult one… Nick Smith vs. a multinational.
Oh, I suppose, to be fair I’d have to side with Nick Smith. But just this once.
One point: it’s hardly the first time a multinational has behaved like this. There, now I feel better.
[DPF: You've just gone up in my books for that response]
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
What is also telling is the way some wankers from the Labour Party taunt Nick Snith about this – gutless Pricks – I truely hope that one of two of them end up financially ruined in time so that others may get an understanding of the strss that it can put against someone.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Monty they will be when they get there arses thrown out of Parliment at the end of this year and have to survive on $12/hr again.
A cinic like me would suggest the only reason Labour raised the minimum wage was to help their out going MP’s.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Hmmmm, he has rather a history of running off at the mouth doesn’t he? You’d think he would have learnt by now, whatever the righteousness of his comments.
Given that the man is probably the wettest of all the wet Tory MPs, and that facing stiff competition, I am having to reach very very hard to find sympathy for him. Arrgggh it must be in there somewhere. Must… find…. it… shit, this is hard work….
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
jafapet writes, “it’s hardly the first time a multinational has behaved like this.”
I thought I had witnessed the kiwi version of the “multinational” company of lawyers performing like trained seals when the crown lawyer glamour team did Nick Smith over for contempt of court in 2004. The fact that he tried in vain to expose injustice within the family court and ended up with substantial legal costs, a conviction and $5k fine is a sad indictment for our corrupt justice system. The stress on his family was sad to watch !!!
The chief crown prosecutor was rewarded for a splendid job well done and invited to join the High Court bench where they get $345K a year? I hope Justice Potter has a nice holiday and keeps away from medal thieves and stops jailing Vince? I can relate to the horrible experience when confronting an overwhelming crown law legal that is a bent team and funded to the max. from the taxpayer.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
If the case succeeds and nick is bankrupted (which I doubt — his party or some other corporate benefactor will bail him out), will that force a by-election?
[DPF: I thought it would, but upon checking it seems it would not]
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
I think that some or all of the Australian states have stopped or severely limited corporates from suing for defamation following aggressive legal action being taken by Gunns of Tasmania against protestors and the media.
This episode indicates that the time has come for NZ to adopt a similar measure and impose some general limitations on defamation.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
I’m afraid I am with Blair on this, Nick Smith has always been an aggressive little space cadet. Very poor judgement, tends to blow his stack at the first hint of a different view, and a bully whenever he has been in a position to throw his weight around – and thats just from when he was last a Minister.
So now he’s opened his mouth and slandered one company too many. oops.
I must say I have no knowledge of the specifics of the case, but as a “wild stab in the dark” I will guess that scientist “blows whistle”, crusading Smith without researching the issue or thinking through the consequences, dons his cape, slips his underpants to the outside and leaps from a tall building to do battle with the evil multinational and thereby raise his own profile.
Leaving rather a deep hole in the pavement when he comes crashing to earth (again).
This is the fifth – count it – fifth time. How many goes does this guy need before he gets the message – breathe through nose, count to 100, do not respond to baiting…
the sooner national deselect him the better for all concerned.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
I think I’m right here, but I seem to remember Helen Clark officially opening a light organic solvent preservative plant near Rotorua, that uses Osmose technology. It was about two years ago.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
This is a good example of justice in New Zealand. If you are guilty you get a good arse kicking and if you are not you still get screwed up the arse. How offen do we see kiwis cleared of all charges then get taken to the cleaners for the pleasure. Even when you win you lose, justice isn’t blind it has a dollar each way.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
The article doesn’t tell us what he actually said. I feel sympathy for him – clearly an awful situation to be in. But the law is the law – if you defame someone you need to answer for it. I can’t tell from the paperwork whether he did, in fact, defame anyone, so hard to form an opinion. What I can say is that you would hope for some learning before the 5th time it happens. Even Winston Peters has worked out that if you have something to say, you say it within parliament where you are beyond the reach of defamation law. That isn’t too complex a concept.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
DPF, what was the story with him being sued by the Brethren? I presume this was long before the 2005 election.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
well well well, here is the BSA decision against Close Up for broadcasting the piece. Very interesting, and pretty much exactly as I guessed. The only twist is that the “whistle blower” turns out to work for the rival product. So the good Dr Smith is even less intelligent than I suggested.
It does look like a TVNZ setup however. But of course, which national party MP can be reliably expected to shoot his mouth off without fear (or cogniscence) of consequences…
maybe Close-Up will offer to meet some of the costs, it was their story that he’ was suckered by?
http://www.bsa.govt.nz/decisions/2005/2005-115.htm
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Well, Nick isn’t my favourite person in the world but what’s your point? Hey, its OK for corporates to use defamation law to harass and intimidate their critics (and let’s not pretend that anyone really feels terribly injured, in most cases), as long as you don’t much like the person on the receiving end?
Here’s something to think about: Robert Maxwell had over a hundred defamation suits in train when he took his terminal midnight dip. A good proportion of them were (successful) attempts to gag hacks who were asking inconvenient questions about irregularities in the Mirror Group’s pension funds. And, yes, many of them were ultimately employed by the evil demon Rupert Murdoch — though I guess the Mirror Group employees who found themselves unemployed, and without the proverbial pot to piss in wouldn’t have been too upset about the competition exposing Maxwell’s creative accounting while their pension funds were still worth something.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Or you could read the BSA case Craig.
Close Up relied on someone with a conflict of interest to beat up on a competitors product. The BSA pointed out that the product tested fine, and was entirely apparently suitable for its intended use.
So according to the story selling an internal framing timber that has been certified for use in NZ was decribed by nick smith as follows:
Nick Smith: “Now this is leaky homes all over again…. And now we’ve got a product that’s a con, that’s just a surface treatment where through a cheapo solution, they are not going to the expense of getting the boron right through, and that leaves home owners exposed, and that is incompetent.”
Nick Smith: “…it’s just superficially treated, and that 80% of that wood can go rotten, and can be eaten by borer, wrecking people’s most important asset. And the Government must be held responsible for that incompetence.”
OSmose noted to the BSA that sales of their product had “plummeted” following the broadcast, and despite a later short retraction item by TVNZ. (this incidentally is what you seem to regard as “lets not pretend that anyone really feels terribly injured” – hey its only money, and they’re a big corporate, and foreign too!)
So a politician to score cheap points connects the company’s entirely legal and certified product to leaky homes, with a consequent commercial impact. and in your world seeking legal remedy is “using defamation law to harass and intimidate” a critic.
Findings
Standard 4 (balance) – seen overall, item seriously criticised TimberSaver product – no scientific evidence provided to refute criticisms – no evidence provided of quality and suitability of product – unbalanced – upheld
Vote:Standard 5 (accuracy) – scientist on programme not independent – conflict of interest – contrary to guideline 5e – upheld – other aspects of accuracy complaint not upheld
Standard 6 (fairness) – seen overall, item unfair to Osmose – upheld
March 24th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
Only big players with well suited up lawyers can afford to sue these days;
http://www.stuff.co.nz/4449279a13.html
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
It is worth comparing this with the defamation case that Helen Clark settled in 1999 in the run-up to the election that year. She cast aspersions on a surgeon where a patient suffered rare complications afterwards which could occur, but which had nothing to do with the competency of the surgery. She settled it out of court to clear the decks for the election. There was no real real ‘public interest’ element in making that defamatory tatement – the aim was to score a cheap political point against National.
The point worth noting is that Helen came under personal attack from her political foes for this.
There was no ‘party politics’ involving Nick’s allegedly defamatory statement – he was concerned with issues surrounding timber treatment chemicals and made public statements about it. His statement was political, but touched on a matter of concern to various people at the time. Whether he made a defamatory statement has yet to be determined, but it seems the ‘plaintiff’ is more concerned to cause Nick’s financial implosion than to progress the issues of the case.
It might not be beyond the realms of possibility that Nick may have to give up his lawyers and fight this ‘in person’ in the same manner that the McLibel pair had to do in Britain – they won a resounding moral victory as well as victories in the European Court and a 20,000 pound out of court settlement with the police who improperly gave McDonalds information concerning their identities.
He is now being personally attacked in what I consider an unprincipled manner by those who are obviously his political enemies. These people have not really bothered to think through the circumstances and implications of the case, but seem to like any excuse to put the boot into a person on the ground.
By the way, the Nelon area Nats has selected Nick Smith as the Nat candidate in this years election – this means he WILL be back in Parliament after the forthcoming election even if for any reason he was placed low on the ‘list’. It is in practice too late for John Key to ‘remove’ him (assuming that he wants to) as suggested by a poster to this debate. This incident has harmed his wallet, but are not likely to harm his electoral chances – it will probably help him achive a crushing victory over Marayan Street.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
yeah right peter, he was being “political” but not “party political”, which is exactly different from the Clark example you raised? how so? Was labour not making a play of health issues, waiting lists and the “failed health reforms of the past” during the 1999 election campaign?
Let me suggest Peter that you don’t audition for the role of Smith’s defence lawyer.
While I am at it, perhaps you could advise your man that next time he decides to play issue politics perhaps he thinks through the ramifications – although knowing the guy, he’ll shoot from the lip again, and then wonder why he’s curled into a reflexive foetal position, and seems to be living in a cardboard box in t’ middle of road…
The lesson for today children is that when you need to select a villain to crusade against for cheap political points, make sure you either do it under Privilege (the Peters principle(sic)) or choose someone weaker than you are.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
and for the avoidance of doubt, the reason I think loose units like Smith should be deselected is because I want National to WIN the election, and then govern relatively competently.
Smith is predictable and easily sidetracked. Consequently a liability. Maybe in nelson you mistake energy for impact, but in a position of responsibility, no thanks.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 6:05 pm
I have, Nigel, and I’d note the Broadcasting Standards Authority does not hear defamation suits but considers specific complaints of breeches of broadcasting codes. Perhaps you might want to get your facts straight before trying to school me in media law or defamation — two subjects I have a professional interest in having a reasonable grasp of. There is a difference.
And I’m sorry to write you a reality check, but I’ve seen the threat of defamation actions blatantly used as a damage control strategy. These kind of cases tend to chew through money, time and energy like a hungry Rottie locked in a butcher’s shop. The logic is quite simple: Even if we lose, odds are you’re the one who is going to financially crippled so why don’t you f-off? If you think that’s a healthy state of affairs — and what defamation law was intended for — we’re just going to have to agree to disagree.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 6:13 pm
‘deity’ – if Labour wants to increase its election chances then they should seriously consider cutting Mike Cullen and Trevor Mallard loose. IMO they are serious liabilities to the Labour Party.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
how perceptive Craig, if you could withhold your traditional snark for just one moment. You are the one who jumped onto a thread demanding that I demonstrate my point. I think I have done that quite adequately.
The facts of this case is that the BSA has found Close-up guilty of breaching the Code of Conduct, and the Court Case (note different location, jurisdiction) is where the defamation allegation is being heard.
Do you really think the BSA Findings won’t form part of the evidence brought before the Court?
Or were you just being cute?
I don’t disagree that the company is playing rough. Or ultimately that the laws of defamation need to be reviewed, but my point is that there is a certain predictability about who the protagonist is, and why he finds himself there, and that was the sum total of my point.
[edit: I see you've just edited your previous post, I completely agree with you about using the Courts to intimidate - and I am not carrying water for Osmose (in fact never heard of them till today), my beef is with Smith for being stupid - AGAIN!]
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 6:21 pm
Peter, I agree completely. I would add Clark, King, Barker, Dalzell, and a further 20 or so anonymous bodies at the back.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
I had a similar experience when about 10 years ago we were shafted by a multi-national when they supplied us fake product and were duly convicted for it. The civil suit was a nightmare and went to the Court of Appeal twice where they got costs awarded against them. We retired when my late wife got cancer and just before the new company law came into force that would have given them another course of action against us personally as directors. They were determined and cost was not a consideration to them. We ultimately fought back in the media and they retired from the NZ market within 12 months.
It was obvious then that civil cases which are lopsided in resources need to be dealt with differently. The ability to appeal on endless points of law causes great expense as it has to be answered if not defended. Whenever an appeal issue is raised it must be responded to or you lose by default. It is irrelevant how irrelevant the issue is because if it is able to be argued, even if is only of peripheral interest, it may go to the substance of law itself and that concerns the legal system.
My suggestion is that such unequal cases should on the application of the lesser party be tried by a bench of three District Court Judges and them alone AND with no right s of appeal on any matter whatsoever whether in regard to fact or law and the findings of such a Court should be absolutely binding. They should have power of requisition and enquiry and the trial should be limited in duration to, say, no more than 3 months.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 8:52 pm
Has anyone considered the fact that as an MP Dazed and Confused has the benefit of parliamentary privilege? Unlike you and I D&C can actually say whatever he likes, about whoever he likes – provided that he does it inside the house. That he chooses to shoot his mouth off outside the house perhaps says everything you need to know about the man.
And don’t forget truth is an absolute defence against defamation cases, so one has to wonder about the necessity for the legal bills.
Perhaps he should have just asked Slippery what to do. His assets then would all be in the family trust and he would have bugger all to worry about.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 8:55 pm
Brenden any concerns about the impending power cuts this winter? Will you be suing Labour?
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 8:56 pm
Nice work brenden. Who is this “Slippery” you speak of? Should I know this person? Does the Labour party support you labeling people in this way?
I agree with you that it should be easy to make allegations inside parliament, and that Smith demonstrates a singular lack of ability to learn. Having said that, and now that he put his foot in it, if you have had anything to do with the justice system you will realise that truth isn’t something that comes for free. For free, you get misrepresentation and obfuscation.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 9:11 pm
Brenden Sheehan:
Spoken like a Labour candidate for the Botany seat – do you really think this is a good look for you? How would you like it if we called you Brenden Sheehan the Hatchet Man – Knocks a Downed Man When He Can? As catchy as it sounds, it’d be just as juvenile.
Great – so we look forward to the next incarnation of Winston Peters using parliamentary privilege as his playground.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
I believe Nick was right to speak up about the product, which I have seen and I have a bad feeling about. I will not use it. The cut ends are untreated. A test of soundness rating after 185 weeks is not good enough for houses that should last for 50 years or more.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:08 pm
Sheehan:
Yes, and as I’ve said repeatedly around here its just a little ironic that we can’t muster much outrage that an MP can stand up in the House and repeat whatever lies they like about anyone outside those hallowed precincts. The muck can be repeated in every media outlet on earth, as they’re covered by qualified privilege.
But if the victim turns around and says they’re a lying toe rag, then you’re technically guilty of contempt of Parliament. Might care to look up the penalties for that.
That he has a little more integrity and courage than your pals Mallard, Clark, Goff, Cullen et. al.?
Um, Sheehan, perhaps you might like to cash this reality check. Unlike you, the legal system works on the tiresome notion of forming a verdict after all the case from both sides has been heard. Deborah Lipstadt and her publishers, Penguin, won the defamation act brought against them by Holocaust denier David Irving. Although Irving was found to be liable to pay all of the substantial costs of the trial, I understand Professor Lipstadt is still out of pocket by hundreds of thousands of dollars (and won’t get it without the dubious benefit of suing a bankrupt jailbird to get satisfaction), not to mention the direct and indirect costs of time lost to more productive work.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
I’ve been called far worse Peak Oil – just have a look at some of the vile posts on this blog about my Aunt’s death. Anyway you should lighten up – a bit of satire in politics can be fun you know, and anyway I have a stable full of nicknames. How about these?
Pansy Wong – Standing Room Only (she can never find a seat)
Vote:Stephen Franks – Skippy (he bounces about all over the place)
Bill English – Dave Dobbyn (because he’s loyal)
Peter Dunne – Bamboo (he bends in the wind)
Jeanette Fitzsimons – Hemmingway (she’s Earnest)
Rodney Hide – The Vanishing (because he is)
Heather Roy – Rambo (no explanation required)
Brian Connell – James Garner (he’s a Maverick)
Winston Peters – Nellie (more comebacks than Melba)
Jim Anderton – Cardigan Bay (still going strong in his 70′s)
March 24th, 2008 at 10:26 pm
Brendan Sheehan:
I don’t know what names you’re referring to – but I do know I’m not responsible for any of them.
Any coincidence that there’s no Labour MPs in your list?
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
Lord Montrose – If Nick Smith is correct then he will/ would win a lawsuit.
Vote:You make the same mistalke as Nick Smith appeared to make.
Wood + Water = Rotten tiimber
Wood + No Water. Timber does not rot.
Too much was made about untreated timber and the leaking home problem.
Go back many years before timber was treated and you will find most houses show no signs of rot. You did find rot in the corners of window areas if you pulled the whole frame out, in the main not a lot.
Several factors are involved in leaky homes, workmanship, design, cladding or the application of claddings.
Dry timber does not rot, wet or damp timber does.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Let’s call a spade a spade – the real cause of the leaky homes debacle was the privatisation of building inspection.
When council building inspectors were responsible for approving new dwellings there were no problems. Sure, the property developers used to complain about ‘excessive red tape’, but look at what havoc they have wreaked since the tape was removed.
It seems blindingly obvious that if you allow developers the right to hire and fire the people who are supposed to be independently assuring the quality of their products then you are in for trouble. Yet the financial burden for these shonky jobs falls not upon the developer or the inspecting company, but upon the ratepayer.
Something is quite wrong here and won’t be corrected until all local authorities reclaim their right to verify the quality of buildings in their municipalities.
Vote:March 24th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
brendensheehan, disagree. The problem was reasonably localised, and more than not was caused by people building mcmansions where they didn’t want to spend the extra 2% to have actual eaves on the houses. Bad for energy efficiency as well, but these days we’d rather have another 10 sq foot in the house, bugger the eaves. There’s a reason that houses have had the things for centuries.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 5:56 am
nigel6888, I see your point and I agree. From a rough reading of this, Nick Smith shot his mouth off and is now being punished for it. It might be a bit heavy handed, but a lot would depend on how much damage the company has suffered when their product was (potentially) falsely accused of being improperly treated on National television during the leaky home scare. If they did suffer financial harm, I hope they take him to the cleaners to set an example. Too many people have forgotten to speak politely. He’s not going to get a great deal of sympathy from me, especially as this is the fifth time he’s been down this road.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 7:17 am
If you asked a hundred people in the street who Osmose is I bet that you would get less than 5% who knew who they were. What harm has been done to them exactly? The company name sounds like some sort of shampoo.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 7:19 am
Would a hundred people in the street be out there buying timber for building construction?
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 7:49 am
He should consider getting legal aid for this sort of action. He might well qualify. He is not a person of means and I suspect the costs of this has cleaned him out. A dreadful situation to be in, just dreadful. There is a book called “Grotesque Libels” by Adam Raphael I have a copy it is a pity Nick did not read that book before going down this path.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 8:10 am
I was sued by a large corporation once. It’s an intimidating experience, so I have an instinctive sympathy toward Smith as the defendant.
But he was so utterly reckless in this case, and he has form. At some point you do end up having to account for what you say.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 10:23 am
Sure, Russell — and I would love to see the BSA (imperfect as it is) given some real teeth and parliamentary privilege substantially weakened. (Sorry, but I don’t see how democracy is under threat if certain MPs I won’t name for legal reasons – cheerfully enabled by the usual media suspects – find it a little harder to stand up and slander their political enemies at will. How often have you seen an allegation made under privilege splashed over the front page of every newspaper, leading every TV and radio bulletin, for days on end but the reality check? Not quite so prominent, if it appears at all.)
As for defamation cases, I’m rather fond of a modest proposal Warwick Roger came up with to deal with the vexatious and egomanically thin-skinned plaintiff:
Any settlement is put in escrow for 5-10 years, If the injured party finds themselves living under a motorway underpass eating roadkill and drinking their own urine, ‘shunned’ by former friends, family and professional associates they get the dosh with interest.
If, as is usually the case, the ‘damage’ turns out to be mostly to their ego, and life rattles on much as it otherwise would have, they get nothing. The settlement is returned to the defendant,and whatever interest accrued is donated to charity.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 10:48 am
Why does it have to be so blooming expensive to get justice done? I don’t know about the facts in this case, but why is it so hard to tell? Nick Smith might be right, but you never know, sometimes a multinational who has had their market destroyed might have been unfairly wronged, and politicians and activists might need to be made to be more careful. Look at the bullshit scares that the likes of Greenpeace drums up, like the one about smoke alarms a few years ago. And the politicians and activists who are responsible for myths and lies about nuclear energy having become received wisdom among the ignorant masses couldn’t be sued for too much, in my opinion.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 1:34 pm
A suggestion: MP’s should voice their concerns in the house. If the product is crook, take it in and show it off for what it is. Parliamentary priviledge is just that; a protection so things can be said that might otherwise be actionable. MP’s are supposed to be sensible, trustworthy people and if they have issues they should be able to state them without concern because we have given them the keys for our public welfare.
The courts can be ruinous to those in the right: their only concern is to referee the game being played by the lawyers. In respect of the one original matter it is perfectly possible for there to be actions going on in the District Court, the High Court and the Court of Appeal all at the same time in regard to different issues arising or being appealed against. Most of these issues will have nothing to do with the real case but more with delay and costs. Legal aid is not available and once things hit the High Court a barrister and probably his junior will be required. The clients on both sides pay for this farce. You can’t pay with an expectation of recovery because any ‘costs awarded’ are to ‘scale’ and minimal compared to actual money paid over and besides any settlement doesn’t occur to the very end of the game, if anyone has any left then. The first to decline to respond in the affidavit war is deemed to be the loser. Timing is important too: a large part of the game is played late on Friday afternoons, at the very last moment to respond, without technical default, when the new, faxed, documents will raise further issues requiring response, meaning more delay, work, briefings and lawyers costs.
We have to stop this farcical, lopsided, system as it has no concern for justice. Sensing that, we attacked our opponents in the media, much to the horror of the barrister. It was good story and we spread the truth around locally and overseas via the internet. Ultimately we were exhausted, physically and financially so at a strategic moment we put the company into liquidation. Both sides lost and the lawyers who were promoting the game were out of pocket too. The company that duped us had their reputation sufficiently damaged that they retired from the NZ scene within 12 months.
My counsel to Nick Smith is to take the matter to Parliament.
Vote:March 25th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Osmose’s sales in the 12mths to 31 Dec 2006 were $32.5m ($26.3 in 05) and after paying tax (!! – they need a better tax adviser) of $159,000 they made a loss of $0.9m. Be interesting therefore to see what effect the issue had on 07 sales when the next set of accounts is filed. As for Smith – terrible lack of judgement.
Vote:March 26th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
The facts of this case are pretty simple. Nick Smith used Osmose’s product as a vehicle to take a public pot-shot at the incumbent government’s supposed incompetence, in that they approved a product that did not meet the complete requirements of the wood treatment standards. He completely failed to check any facts with Osmose, and relied totally on the jaundiced views of an “independent” scientist who was at the time employed by a manufacturer of competing preservative products (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/index.cfm?objectid=10336209). This matter took place on 11 July 2005; gosh wasn’t that the same year as the last election??? Could he have been politically motivated???
Nick also failed to understand that the Building Industry Authority had every right to approve a product (that did not meet all requirements of the standard) provided they were satisfied that it met or exceeded all requirements of the Building Act. Thank you to those who looked up the BSA’s decision, however that did not provide any proof that Nick Smith was wrong, simply that TVNZ’s coverage of the matter was unbalanced. The Department of Building and Housing have subsequently (July 2007 – only 2 years too late!!!) exonerated the product and upheld the BIA’s original decision. (http://www.dbh.govt.nz/userfiles/file/publications/building/technical-reports/timbersaver-investigation-final-report.doc):
“providing the TimberSaver treated framing timber was and is used in accordance with the conditions of use, it will meet the performance requirements of the Building Code and;
the conditions of use are practical, and not dissimilar to those of other treated timber products”
TimberSaver was a locally developed product, and was backed with independent efficacy research conducted by the NZ experts at the Forest Research Institute. Nick Smith attacked the product publicly, without checking his facts, and caused significant financial harm to Osmose. Irrespective of whether Osmose is locally owned or owned by a US corporation, they should have the right to recover their losses by any legal means.
Vote: