Only yourself to blame

May 23rd, 2012 at 10:00 am by David Farrar

Radio NZ reports:

Labour MP is critical of the way he was served papers on behalf of ACC Minister who is suing him and fellow MP .

Mr Little says a man emerged from the darkness on Monday night, shone a torch in his eyes and served him the papers as he got out of a taxi at his house.

Mr Little says the way the papers were served is typical of Judith Collins’ approach.

It is very hard to have sympathy for Andrew when he of course could have done what 99% of people do when a lawyer asks for an address for service – supply one. But if you’re going to go all macho and boast about how you will not co-operate, then don’t think you can take the moral high ground that you get served getting out of a taxi.

Incidentally the server rather than being a thug, had a nice sense of humour as it seems his words were “You’re served Mr Little, but no fries with that I’m afraid”.

He now has 25 days to file a statement of defence, but says he does not believe Ms Collins intends the matter to go to trial.

I’m pretty sure Andrew also said he never expects Judith to file in court.

Tags: , , ,

51 Responses to “Only yourself to blame”

  1. Manolo (13,746 comments) says:

    The boring, dull and uncharismatic Little knows no shame.
    He’s an individual with a very fitting surname.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. hmmokrightitis (1,590 comments) says:

    Little, macho? Have you actually seen the man? My 7 year old daughter has more testosterone. And the ex Mr HClark has bigger nads than the pathetic snivelling little, um Little. Said it before, say it again, lawyer, stike one; unionist, strike two.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Paulus (2,626 comments) says:

    Silly Little man.
    Still thinks he is a Union thug beyond the law.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Positan (390 comments) says:

    For a self-perceived “future leader” of Labour, he’s yet to demonstrate talents other than being possessed of the brains of a blowfly.

    Who’d know – on performance of recent weeks such might be actually a qualification.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. kowtow (8,439 comments) says:

    Members of the political elite,in this case ,a leftist, don’t like being treated like the rest of us plebs. All part of the isolation that modern politics represents.

    As Corporal Jones would have said “They don’t like it up ‘em”……….how sad………not.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. anonymouse (715 comments) says:

    I am pretty sure that the “torch in the eyes” was actually more of a “torch on the face” to ensure that the process server had positively identified Mr Little before he served him the documents,
    but hey if that is how he wants to describe it………

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. gravedodger (1,566 comments) says:

    “Diddums”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. david (2,557 comments) says:

    Not only is he a snivelling little weasel trying to act all macho (which actually looks more like Kath (of Kath&Kim) saying “look-at-meeeeeeee”) but also seems to be lacking a bit in the logical analysis department.

    The claims that Collins will not want it to go to Court fall flat when you consider that all she had to do was quietly drop it and not file the case – she could easily have said that Mallard and Little were frankly not worth wasting breath on and that she had enough to worry about being part of running the country. They would have quickly stopped getting airtime with claims she wimped out but no. Collins has – so far – delivered on every threat she has made and looks set to go all the way which makes Little’s statements nothing more than empty posturing for the media.

    As has been said elsewhere recently, the public are more perceptive than pollies give them credit for and all I see is Little and Mallard losing credibility every time one of them opens his gob.

    Little’s claims of being a lawyer are also meaningless – no-one would hire someone who gives such bad advice.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. KH (695 comments) says:

    He set up the situation. Then complains.
    Another creep with a sense of entitlement.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. graham (2,335 comments) says:

    As I have no intention of visiting the cess-pool that is The Standard, is there anybody braver than I who is able to tell us how they are painting this?

    Or is it a vomit-inducing read?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    David, unless you have seen something not in the public domain, you can’t anticipate Collins could win this? Forget the confected drama about the serving, Collins is going to look incredibly silly should this actually see the inside of a court. I expect a long delay. If this is undignified, there’s only one reason why.

    [DPF: I do expect her to win, unless Mallard or Little have some proof. They claimed she lied and that she did leak the letter. Their sole proof is an anonymous e-mail alleging Collins leaked it. I don't think a court will accept an anonymous e-mail as a basis of good faith for their allegations]

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. peterwn (3,271 comments) says:

    It is quite possible that he will have to pay the cost of service regardless of any outcome. Seems it will be higher in Trevor’s case. This is because he was given the chance to cooperate but declared he would give the server the run-around. I base this on the principle that in civil proceedings, if a party denies a fact stated in the papers, that party has to meet the cost of the other party in proving the fact. For example if X denies he owns a particular property and Y’s lawyer has to do a title search to prove X owns it, and then swear the associated affidavit, then X has to meet the cost of this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Shit, this just gets worse and worse for these guys…Your post is 100% spot on DPF…in this situation you either arrange for service quietly through your own lawyer or you put on a big show of getting served at the Backbencher with cameras rolling…You don’t do this…

    As Whale said yesterday, this might go down well with the screeching loons at the Standard, but not with “Waitakere man” and his missus who used to support Labour…which is of course what Little & Co are yet to get…

    Ah, the janitor from the TAFE in Aussie is here…tell us what their defence will be hotshot? “Truth” is the only one I can see they can run…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. fish_boy (152 comments) says:

    It is funny that the day before possibly the stupidest finance minister we’ve ever had hands down the stupidest, most ideologically proscribed black budget since Ruchardson – a budget that’ll lock us into another couple of years of unnecessary recession – all the voice of National can resort to is increasingly hysterical attempts at character assassination.

    Kiwiblog the last two day has been the final admission that National have lost the economic argument, that they are bereft of ideas, and that they are now seeking refuge and solace in the politics of division and diversion.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    I think the word you want is “prescribed” sonny…that’s the trouble when you start trying to show your linguistic skills…”proscribe” means to banish or denounce….

    Should have struck with “driven”…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    I haven’t bothered looking at the Standard much this week, as it turns out budget week is a good time to be having a break.

    The post on it was Pride Cometh

    Written By: Eddie – Date published: 10:47 am, May 17th, 2012

    Judith Collins has finally filed defamation action against Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little. She’s waited until close to the Budget so that the story would be quickly overshadowed and then forgotten. You see, Collins had foolishly got herself between a rock and a hard place. On one hand, having promised to sue, she had to follow through or be taunted forever and be seen as conceding she leaked Pullar’s name. On the other, there’s no way she would win a suit and her leadership aspirations would take a big hit from losing, which would be seen as de facto proof she leaked Pullar’s name.

    What to do? Hoping everyone would forget hadn’t worked. Announcing she was dropping it would have been the optimal choice. She hasn’t got a snow-ball’s of winning, the story will get dragged out for years, and, if it makes it to court, the information that will come out about how she operates is bound to seriously embarrass (if she’s hoping that would be cancelled out by embarrassing Mallard and Little in turn, she’s dreaming – Mallard is in his last term, Little hasn’t had time to accumulate skeletons, and she’s wanting to be National’s next leader). It’ll be her reputation in the limelight in a defamation court case, no-one else’s.

    But Collins is a very proud person. She would rather aggressively pursue a route that is ultimately going to hurt her more than take a hit to her pride now. And her advisors and confidantes are Slater/Lusk, the geniuses who have fucked up every anti-union campaign in the past six months. So, she’s doing the silly thing and suing.

    If she’s lucky, it’ll never make it to court because the judge will dismiss it out of hand for having no prima facie case (how can it be prima facie defamatory to accuse Collins of doing what her collegue Paula Bennett openly and proudly did – release confidential information about a critic of the government?)

    If it goes wrong for her, she’ll be losing a court case and having her dirty laundry aired in the lead-up to her planned take-over of National.

    The sources in National who leaked the Slater/Lusk stuff must be rubbing their hands in delight. Of the Collins faction, they certainly ain’t.

    Interesting that it was Eddie who said here that “Mallard is in his last term”, but Mallard came on to the thread to “clarify”:

    Trevor Mallard 7
    17 May 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Me final term who suggested that ? Midpoint of career more like it. Was involved in discussion in relation to one of my predecessors Walter Nash yesterday. Good precedent.

    Eddie seems to struggle with his/her facts.

    I’ve searched and no hits on Andrew Little since that post.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Adolf Fiinkensein (2,903 comments) says:

    Belittled.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Wayne91 (142 comments) says:

    fish boy 1052am “that National have lost the economic argument” WRONG!

    http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/business/6957662/More-voters-blame-Labour-for-NZ-debt

    How ironical it is for you to say that the serial character assassin , Mallard is having his character assonated.? Very Ironic.

    Seriously fish-boy I don’t think it was a planned diversion – Its only become one because of Mallard and Little’s arrogance, posturing and contempt.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    lol @ fishboy

    are there any actual blokes in labour?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Grendel (1,002 comments) says:

    ah, fishboy has slipped his chains again and found a computer. conspiracy theories are all nice and fun, but do try and stay in the real world wee fish.

    let me guess, fish boy demands stimulus money, or throwing more money at those who dont work, or probably as hes an envious little twerp he will bleat about wanting people to pay their ‘fair share’ so wants tax raised on those who already pay almost all the tax.

    despite the fact that National are a bit spineless and are not cutting as much as they should, at least we know they are not going to turn us into greece anytime soon, despite the wailing from the left that they should.

    oh, another possibility is that FIsh is Andrew Little? they both seem about as vapid, self absorbed and distant from reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. dime (9,972 comments) says:

    “Trevor Mallard 7
    17 May 2012 at 4:00 pm

    Me final term who suggested that ? Midpoint of career more like it”

    LMAO

    Just tell the truth trev “I have no other options. I am worthless in the private sector. I will end up in Kabul if im lucky”.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. tom hunter (4,809 comments) says:

    … fish boy demands stimulus money

    fish_boy demands that we change the subject and derail the thread – as any good little Labour hack would want to do.

    Don’t let him.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. backster (2,171 comments) says:

    I seem to recall Mallard/Little boasting that they would video the service of documents so that we could all have a laugh. So far all we have heard is a pathetic whine, where’s the video show.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    [DPF: I do expect her to win, unless Mallard or Little have some proof. They claimed she lied and that she did leak the letter. Their sole proof is an anonymous e-mail alleging Collins leaked it. I don't think a court will accept an anonymous e-mail as a basis of good faith for their allegations]

    I’d want to see the Statement of Claim before jumping to that conclusion (and also recall that there’s a number of defences available).

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > Or is it a vomit-inducing read?

    None more so than reading the comments of munters here. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > They claimed she lied

    It wouldn’t be the first time she’s lied.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. m@tt (629 comments) says:

    “I’m pretty sure Andrew also said he never expects Judith to file in court”
    And I bet he is hoping and praying she’ll prove him wrong again.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. bhudson (4,740 comments) says:

    And I bet he is hoping and praying she’ll prove him wrong again.

    Ahahahahahaha. m@tt, I think you’ll find your Little hero has feet of clay. And testicles to match…

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. Elaycee (4,392 comments) says:

    Haha – this is comedy gold!

    Little bleats long and hard because he was served. Mallard still cowers in the corner. And on cue, the usual suspects emerge to try and defend their comrades Little and Mallard.

    In the meantime, Crusher scores!

    Brilliant! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    It would have been so easy for Collins to drop this quietly with some muttered excuses, she must have some pretty robust advice that she is golden.
    I would have thought this would be a career ender if she comes out on the wrong side of this?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    I would have thought this would be a career ender if she comes out on the wrong side of this?

    She could file and not pursue it, citing work pressures or some such. It’d be great sport to watch, certainly she has the most to lose.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. Tauhei Notts (1,711 comments) says:

    I sincerely hope that Judith’s lawyers have subjected her to an extremely rigorous questioning. A questioning that will show that she has every chance of winning the case.
    If she wins, and I oh so hope she does, it will destroy the careers of two imbeciles.
    And I will subject my liver to extreme punishment when I celebrate that win.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Janitor from TAFE: What are the available defences other than truth genius? Fair comment? That someone lied? I dont think so. Qualfied privilege? Explain to us all how that could apply here? It’s truth or nothing – they prove that either she leaked it or knew what someone in her office did, or they are found liable.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    David Garrett, what is likley timeframe for this to hit court?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    David, you are an excitable chap aren’t you? What were you struck off for?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Colville, some time lines,

    The defendants, Mr Little and Mr Mallard have a period of 30 days from service of the claim to file a defence.

    At the same time as being notifed of the claim they would have been notified about an initial telephone conference between counsel for the parties which will fix time tables for discovery, amended claims if required various other interlocutory matters and then giving consideration to a settlement conference and then on to a hearing date.

    The claim will have given to one of the associate judges to manage through to a hearing although having regard to the media interest this claim will garner it may go straight to a High Court Judge to manage.

    if matters progress in a straightforward manner and if a settlement conference is not successful you are looking at 1 year to 18 months before a substantive hearing takes place. if matters do not proceed smoothly then the claim could take years to resolve.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. cows4me (248 comments) says:

    Little and Mallard , what pussies. Useless tits, you would think that they would be very sure of their facts before they shot their mouths off. They knew they were going to be served, you would have thought these two would be rushing to see crushers lawyer to get their papers, such would be their belief in their convictions of their words. Maybe Kelly Tarlton can offer these two a job when they get their arse’s sued off, they could be in the new jellyfish display.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. alex Masterley (1,517 comments) says:

    Paul W.
    I suggest you check the record of the NZ Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal. If you had bothered to look you would have seen that Mr Garrett was suspended for a period of time, not struck off.
    Best you withdraw the comment and apologise old son.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    I withdraw and apologise… and rephrase; David, for what were you suspended and how long?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Richard Hurst (855 comments) says:

    Believe it or not- Trev and Little could be served on Facebook:
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10561970

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    you would think that they would be very sure of their facts before they shot their mouths off.

    Since when did that matter? The aim is to accuse and stir things up, to then hope that either:
    – the media will take over and actually find some evidence of something damaging
    – for the target to deny/lie/make a fool of themselves responding so that can be used against them

    The latter worked to an extent with the several John Banks attacks.

    Facts are occasionally useful, but far from essential – they believe that perception is everything, as long as the public perceive there is a problem they have succeeded. They are as likely to use deliberate misinformation (or lies) as they are facts.

    They bank on no one going as far as starting proceedings against them.

    (“They” being a generic term for political smearers).

    Same with their blog lackeys. They spout more bluster and fiction than they do facts. It’s about provoke and hope.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Steve Wrathall (284 comments) says:

    “…National are a bit spineless and are not cutting as much as they should, at least we know they are not going to turn us into greece anytime soon…” Yeah, they’ll take a little longer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. ross69 (3,652 comments) says:

    > she must have some pretty robust advice that she is golden.

    So she didn’t come down in the last shower?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    Tauhei: I know Judith Collins, a little. She is not stupid, and will have gone into this with her eyes wide open.

    Williams: Stop now before you make an even bigger fool of yourself…filing things and not pursuing them is no longer an option. If she did that she would find herself on the wrong side of a costs award and a telling of for wasting the court’s time. Facts she will be well aware of.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Paul Williams (878 comments) says:

    filing things and not pursuing them is no longer an option.

    Yeah, just caught up on that. As you know, I no longer work in NZ so had missed this, cheers for the update.

    Since you’re now practicing, and as she’s a mate, perhaps you could act for her?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Keeping Stock (10,337 comments) says:

    With due respect to DG Paul. Judith Collins has got herself the bloke who is regarded as the best defamation QC in the country. Given that she’s paying for it herself, I’m sure that she’s done a risk/reward anakysis.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. David Garrett (7,271 comments) says:

    KS: Why did you bother answering the wanker?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Is this the plan that Silent T has for taking power?
    Collins will knock off Chicken Little (and Yellow Duck)
    Jones will take Shearer with him..
    and Silent T can lead in 2014 to an even lower voter approval that 2011 ! :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. Pete George (23,559 comments) says:

    Colville – perhaps that’s why Cunliffe is wearing a beard for disguise, so no one recognises him amongst the current muppets.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. wynkie (86 comments) says:

    Are you sure Colllins thought this one through?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. scrubone (3,099 comments) says:

    “But Collins is a very proud person.”

    Translation: Eddie is a very proud person, i.e. full of ….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote