« PN suppression: missed angle? | Main | Mau about gay issues »
Defamation claimant bombs
By Steven | February 21, 2010
Brady Errol Chadwick has suffered a setback in his defamation claim against the Dominion Post. He has been ordered to pay $10,000 security for costs, which means that it’s unlikely his case will progress.
This will be a relief to Fairfax since it’s not at all clear the media organisation would have been able to afford the relief Mr Chadwick is seeking:
collateral/commodities to the value of three billion New Zealand dollars payable as uranium for use in Atomic Power Stations.
Topics: Defamation | 7 Comments »
7 Responses to “Defamation claimant bombs”
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
February 22nd, 2010 at 10:46 am
That’s an interesting amount of security to ask for. Far too much for the common man or woman, but chicken feed for the wealthy and large corporations.
Steven, is the security determined on a case-by-case basis, or is this a standard amount?
February 22nd, 2010 at 11:11 am
It’s low, if anything. It’s only to cover the first part of the case. Security for costs aims to ensure that the DomPost isn’t out of pocket fighting an expensive but fruitless lawsuit.
But you’re right, for most people, it kills the case dead. And that will have been the DomPost’s aim. That’s problematic for poor people. But here, the defendant didn’t turn up, had pleaded his case extraordinarily badly, seems to have been declared a vexatious litigant, and the judge found that the DomPost probably had a good defence. (Tell you what, though: that last conclusion strikes me as a bit dodgy. I don’t know all the details, and I haven’t seen the pleadings, but the case cited by the judge did not strike me as a slam dunk for the DomPost).
Still, judges know that security orders like this are likely to prevent cases proceeding, and they’re reluctant to use them against people who genuinely have a good case but don’t have much money.
February 22nd, 2010 at 6:45 pm
[…] Price blogs: Brady Errol Chadwick has suffered a setback in his defamation claim against the Dominion Post. He […]
March 9th, 2024 at 11:59 pm
… [Trackback]
[…] Read More Info here on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=346 […]
March 18th, 2024 at 3:39 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More on that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=346 […]
April 3rd, 2024 at 8:09 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Information to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=346 […]
April 17th, 2024 at 4:40 am
… [Trackback]
[…] Find More Information here to that Topic: medialawjournal.co.nz/?p=346 […]