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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

Pansy Wong – Standing Room Only (she can never find a seat)
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)

Has anyone considered the fact that as an MP Dazed and Confused has the benefit of parliamentary privilege?

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 chooses to shoot his mouth off outside the house perhaps says everything you need to know about the man.

That he has a little more integrity and courage than your pals Mallard, Clark, Goff, Cullen et. al.?

And don’t forget truth is an absolute defence against defamation cases, so one has to wonder about the necessity for the legal bills.

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.

… Dazed and Confused [Nick Smith]…
… Slippery [John Key] …

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.

Unlike you and I D&C can actually say whatever he likes, about whoever he likes – provided that he does it inside the house.

Great – so we look forward to the next incarnation of Winston Peters using parliamentary privilege as his playground.

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.