Mallard and Little fold
November 14th, 2012 at 5:14 pm by David FarrarAdam Bennett at NZ Herald reports;
ACC Minister Judith Collins’ defamation action against Labour MPs Trevor Mallard and Andrew Little has been settled following a hearing in the High Court at Auckland today. …
In a statement today following their meeting, the three parliamentarians said they agreed “the leak of the email Ms Boag sent to the minister and forwarded on her instructions as the responsible minister to the chairman and chief executive of ACC raised an issue of serious public concern, and that Messrs Mallard and Little were entitled to question who was responsible for that leak”.
“The parties continue to differ over whether the comments made by Messrs Mallard and Little respectively on Radio NZ implied the minister falsely assured the House that neither she nor her office was responsible for the leak.
“Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention and wish to make that clear publicly that in the event such meaning was taken they regret it.”
In the statement, the three politicians said they would make no further comment.
If Mallard and Little had said that a few months ago they could have saved themselves a lot of money.
Related posts:
- Collins taking defamation action against Mallard, Little and Radio NZ
- Is the taxpayer funding Mallard and Little’s legal fees
- Mallard and Little defamation suit filed in court
- Trevor goes undercover
November 14th, 2012 at 5:19 pm
Cactus unspins the statement: http://asianinvasion2006.blogspot.hk/2012/11/the-settlement-unspun.html
She says that ‘regret’ is a non-apology, maybe legally she’s right, but this is politics too…
…implied the minister falsely assured the House that neither she nor her office was responsible for the leak.
“Messrs Mallard and Little have confirmed to Ms Collins that was not their intention…
…could be seen as a not particularly honest admission. I’m sure what they actually said then will be analysed against this.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:28 pm
Of course they intended people to take that view; why else would they have said it, but to blacken Collins’ reputation?
I score it as a points victory to the Crusher.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Looks to me from that joint statement that Ms Collins did as much “folding” as Messrs Mallard and Little.
And (as I believe that the Minister was paying her own costs) she too would have saved herself a lot of money.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:30 pm
it wouldn’t have cost Trev much at all, I understand he has a concession card like you get at swimming pools
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:31 pm
No apology, no retraction. They folded how exactly ?
Draw at best for Collins.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:32 pm
The real pain for Trev & Little is yet to come…. Do the honourable members stand by their statements or are they going to back down when challenged in court like they have in the past …..
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:38 pm
‘calendar girl (804) Says:
November 14th, 2012 at 5:29 pm
Looks to me from that joint statement that Ms Collins did as much “folding” as Messrs Mallard and Little.
And (as I believe that the Minister was paying her own costs) she too would have saved herself a lot of money.”
She ‘sued’ but didn’t sue, got an ‘apology’ of double meanings.
Vote:Credit to them all though, there was little point going on with it as Judith decided much earlier.
November 14th, 2012 at 5:49 pm
If Mallard and Little had said that a few months ago they could have saved themselves a lot of money.
Yes, the masters make another clever move on the strategic political chessboard.
I’m quite disappointed in Little. He struggles in politics and he’s smarmy. He’d make a really lousy PM, but I can see him leader after Cunliffe’s run.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:50 pm
Of course there’s no apology – Mallard & Little’s apology would be meaningless – the point is they folded. Small victory to Collins, Mallard & Little still looking stupid.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 5:51 pm
She would had an impossible task to show she suffered damage other than hurt feelings which wouldn’t be high value for a politician subject to daily insults from opponents.
So she would have won the case with a 1 cent award for damages which would not be a great political point-scorer. Hence the double-talk settlement.
[DPF: Alan, Collins was not seeking damages. She was merely seeking a declaration that she was defamed, and of course then costs.]
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 6:10 pm
Done and dusted. Crusher came out on top. Another fail for mallard and his union mate
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
How the hell is this a win for Collins. She folded her position as much as the two clowns from Labour.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Game. Set. Match to Crusher.
Mallard has to retract his stupid and ill-judged comments. Again. Quelle surprise.
Little proves that he’s not leadership material. Not even for Labour. Says it all, really.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 6:18 pm
Given that Mr Mallard is known to frequent this site, no doubt we will be hearing his version of the matter in due course. . .
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 6:24 pm
‘Mark (889) Says:
November 14th, 2012 at 6:16 pm
How the hell is this a win for Collins. She folded her position as much as the two clowns from Labour.’
More in fact, from the moment she ‘downgraded’ to wanting an apology.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 6:35 pm
Cactus called it a win for Mallard and Little, she’s probably right.
Collins didn’t get what she set out for; no two ways round that.
I’m wondering if she was given the word from on high to pull this as a trial was just going to be a distraction the government didn’t need, going to court always carries the risk of defeat. Juries can be an awkward bunch.
Plus it just drags the whole ACC thing back into the public eye.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:01 pm
This is nothing but a big loss for Collins. She wanted the Court to rule that she had been defamed. The Court has made no such ruling. Which of course begs the question: who was behind the leak of Boag’s email? A reasonable person would now say it was probably the Justice Minister.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:04 pm
I think Judith Collins got what she wanted most – the public largely think that Mallard and Little are bovine scatologists of the highest order.
They may smirk with their little semantic ‘win’, but the public don’t play semantics. Regret means caught out in their eyes.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:05 pm
[DPF: Alan, Collins was not seeking damages. She was merely seeking a declaration that she was defamed, and of course then costs.]
She got neither that declaration nor an apology. In other words it was a lose-lose for her, and the public will be entitled to think that she was the source of the leak.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:10 pm
‘Entitlement’ doesn’t mean anything. Mallard and Little have backed off accusing her of that and they say they never meant to imply she lied when she said she hadn’t leaked.
The public is entitled to think Mallard and Little were blustering with no evidence,in other words falsely accusing Collins – which Mallard repeated in tweets and on Facebook.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Further confirmation of the despicable nature of the weasel Little and the thug Mallard.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:11 pm
Was she awarded costs? It’s not mentioned so I’ll assume not and I see no declaration of defamation so I don’t see how she got what she was seeking or wanted.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:22 pm
> The public is entitled to think Mallard and Little were blustering with no evidence…
Well, you’d have to have a fanciful imagination and/or be a rabid Tory supporter to think that. If it were true, Collins would have got exactly what she wanted. Instead, she got neither an apology nor vindication. She called it quits before her reputation could be restored. Weird.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 7:28 pm
boring, i wanted this to go to court.
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 8:22 pm
Hit and run, Gangboag style
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 9:54 pm
From the NZ Herald of 17 May 2012:
If it was a “vexatious action” Trevor, why did you settle?
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 10:37 pm
ross69
You’re the sort of socialist who would support Malllard swinging his fists inside the house when he can’t control his childish temper then denigrate a “tory” for using harsh language – your opinion is irrelevant !
Puncher Mallard and double dipper Little have backed down on their big strong position of no fear – get over it !
Vote:November 14th, 2012 at 10:55 pm
Did the taxpayer have to pay for Little and Mallard?
Vote:November 15th, 2012 at 12:24 am
Looks like a grand waste of time and money, just to try to prove a point.
Vote:Pointless.
November 15th, 2012 at 7:05 am
BigFish,
You are absolutely right – Mallard and Little should have just apologised immediately on being called out. Or better yet, not have levelled the accusations in the first place. I guess their caregivers were just a little too busy at the time.
Vote:November 15th, 2012 at 7:39 am
> Mallard and Little should have just apologised immediately on being called out…
Collins should have been upfront from the very beginning and explained how Boag’s email was leaked. Why did she print a copy of it and who had access to it? Why did she forward it on to others when it was strictly confidential? You know, basic questions which she hasn’t been able to answer.
Vote:November 15th, 2012 at 7:48 am
Explain something you have no knowledge about. That’s an interesting concept ross69.
We can see, repeatedly, that you try to practice it, but the vast majority of us appreciate that it isn’t actually possible.
Vote:November 15th, 2012 at 7:50 am
Mallard and Little stated:
Only a card carrying, myopic leftard could possibly interpret that statement as meaning something other than a backtrack by the Labour bovver boys.
Collins got what she wanted – despite the bleating and wailing from Mallard and Little, they had to either prove Collins was lying (they couldn’t prove it because she wasn’t) or they had to retract their ill conceived comments (and so they did).
Sheesh…..
Vote:November 15th, 2012 at 8:14 am
@ross69
So who is a Tory in NZ?
You prattle out that term most likely as a demeaning term but it reeks of cloth capped knuckle dragging UK unionists who seem enamored with perpetuating the class system.
Vote:Hey ross69… the class system sucks! This is NZ, get over it.
November 15th, 2012 at 10:57 am
The term Tory comes from an Irish word “toraidhe” meaning outlaw or Irish rebel. this relates to them originally being catholic supporters or jacobites who supported the Stuart monarchy against the roundheads & covenanters before, during and after the British civil War.
Vote: