It’s curious to see Trevor Mallard saying so much in social media about the progress of the defamation case against him. He seems to see it as an ongoing PR opportunity.
I wonder if Collins’ QC has sorted out a day for @johnkeypm to explain why he didn’t believe Collins and asked her a second time, to the High Court
And on Twitter:
Round one to Mallard and Little – next round not till November after privacy comm reports on leak
@johnkeypm in court next year
@Whaleoil judge gave us timing we want
The APNZ article on the defamation claim implies he’s not defending it on the basis that what he said was true.
Set aside last week in February for watching
@johnkeypm explaining to court why he had to ask Collins twice whether she or her office leaked
Very happy with High Court decision to delay next hearing till November and case to next year. Though I’m looking forward to watching Key explain why he had to ask Collins twice about leak. If he didn’t believe her why should I.
A report on todays hearing from NZ Herald:
ACC defamation claim trial date set
A defamation case laid by ACC Minister Judith Collins against Labour MPs Andrew Little and Trevor Mallard has been set to go to trial, however, it could still be resolved by a Privacy Commissioner’s investigation into a leaked email about an ACC client.
A preliminary hearing was held in the High Court at Auckland this morning and a trial date was set for three to five days in February next year.A settlement conference has also been set down November when the matter could still be resolved outside of court.
Counsel should by that time have a report by Privacy Commissioner Marie Shroff, who is currently investigating how the email got to the media.
The majority of today’s court hearing cannot be reported, other than the directions given by Justice Geoffrey Venning.
He declined an application by the defendants’ counsel, John Tizard, to have the proceedings delayed pending the outcome of the Privacy Commissioner’s report, which Mr Tizard had submitted could be “critical”.
Justice Venning said the report may not be determinative, and the court would not be bound by its findings.
The trial is set to be before a judge alone, however, Justice Venning reserved the defence’s right to seek a jury in light of the report.
He said the key issues in the case were whether the comments made by Mr Little and Mr Mallard were on an occasion of qualified privilege; whether they were motivated by ill will; and whether they took improper advantage of the circumstances.