Hagamans file defamation against Little

Andrew Little chose not to apologise and retract statements made about Earl Hagaman so Hagaman has filed papers beginning defamation proceedings against Little.

Stuff: Defamation claim against Labour’s Andrew Little

Scenic Hotel Group founders Earl and Lani Hagaman say they have filed papers in the High Court after Little failed to retract and apologise for comments made about Mr Hagaman.

“The proceedings have now been served on Mr Little,” the couple said in a statement.

“As we said earlier, the reasons we’re taking defamation action have been widely reported in the media and I won’t be repeating his allegations that Earl and I find hurtful, highly offensive and totally false.  We will now clear our names in Court”, Lani Hagaman said. 

“As the matter is now before the High Court, no further comment will be made and the case will now proceed to a hearing.”

A spokesman for Little confirmed he had received the papers via his solicitor and as the matter was now before the courts he would not be making further comment.

Defamation proceedings tend to take a long time so unless Little has a change of mind and avoids it going to court this may well stretch out through election year.

Leave a comment

24 Comments

  1. Blazer

     /  16th June 2016

    Wonder if he got a hand funding it..I would guess he did.Having the leader of the opposition before the courts with an election looming is a bonus for the govt.You only need to look at the indecent delay in getting one of their own to answer and the blackout concerning the allegations to arrive at this conclusion.

    Reply
    • artcroft

       /  16th June 2016

      I’ve no doubt you are right and that Little is receiving funding from somewhere. Secret trust probably.

      Reply
    • Corky

       /  16th June 2016

      Who will be concerned about Paula with this juicy morsel to chew on, eh Blazer.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  16th June 2016

        I would be extremely surprised if this was National funded. Do be careful, Blazer, this could be libellous.

        Reply
  2. Strong For Life

     /  16th June 2016

    How will Mr Little fund his defence? Will he pay from his own pocket? Will there be cake stalls and a whip around at Labour Party meetings? Will unions donate to the Little legal fund? Will taxpayers’ money be used?

    Reply
    • A spokesman for Mr Little confirmed Mr Little had been advised the Hagamans had filed proceedings and had agreed to service via his solicitor. He said Mr Little has not used any Parliamentary funding to cover his legal costs.

      MPs can get their costs reimbursed for legal proceedings taken against them in their capacity as an MP. The approval of the party leader and the Speaker is required. That does not have to be disclosed, because only ministers are subject to the Official Information Act. The money comes out of a party’s leader’s fund — a sum given to party leaders to run their Parliamentary units which is based on the number of MPs the party has.

      http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11657175

      Reply
      • Brown

         /  16th June 2016

        Thanks for that. We are paying for Mr Stupid to be stupid then? When does this lack of accountability nonsense in politics end?

        Reply
        • Kitty Catkin

           /  16th June 2016

          I can’t see that this is him as an MP-I may be wrong, of course. But to me it would be stretching it to make it that, as it’s not really him as an MP so much as him, private citizen.

          Reply
    • Corky

       /  16th June 2016

      My guess is you won’t be able to get into any Warehouse throughout New Zealand without navigating past numerous sausage sizzles. And maybe hawkers hawking a raffle with the first prize of ” spending a day with Andy.”

      LOL…I think.

      Reply
  3. lurcher1948

     /  16th June 2016

    Dirty backroom deals done dirt cheap..

    Reply
  4. Kitty Catkin

     /  16th June 2016

    What a stubborn fool he was over this. A few words of apology and it would be yesterday’s news-fish & chip paper. He has to have ancestry from Northern Ireland, as well as from the North of England.

    But then, my parents were from there, and even I know when it’s just not worth it NOT to admit that one is wrong when one knows that one IS, agony as it is for people from that part of the world to do this.

    Reply
    • PDB

       /  16th June 2016

      Andy thinks this may be a ‘game-changer’.

      Reply
      • Gezza

         /  16th June 2016

        Could well be. Not in the way he expected though.

        Reply
        • PDB

           /  16th June 2016

          The left have had a few over recent years……..

          *Bryce Edwards: “Matt McCarten could be a ‘game changer’ for Labour”
          *Edwards again: “Could new Green Party co-leader James Shaw be a “game changer” for his party”.
          *Dirty Politics (the BIG game-changer’ from Hager).
          *E tū: “endorses Labour/Green Party MOU as “game-changer”.
          *NZMEA: “Today’s announcement by David Parker and the Labour Party if done well, might be a game changer”.
          *Gareth Hughes “I believe advance voting will be a game-changer this Election”
          *Hughes again on a ‘Green’ bank: “I think this could be a game changer for the New Zealand economy”.
          *Chris Trotter: “BREAKING: Game-Changer: Laila Harré accepts the Internet Party leadership…”
          *Dotcom said his ‘big reveal’ would be a game changer.
          *Paddy Gower speaking on TV about a TV3 poll in Feb 2014 said it was a ‘game changer’ for the left.
          *Bradbury (the king of imaginary game-changers), aside from saying all the above were ‘game changers’ also said the Mana party/ internet party combo, Cunliffe’s appointment as Labour leader, and also ‘NZ Power’ were ‘game changers’.

          Reply
  5. I am pleased that Little is being called to account. His comments were a kneejerk reactioe n or maybe a gleejerk reaction thinking he could imply the presence of corruption in a taxpayer funded contract. He did not engage brain before making his claims, nor did he do his homework on the background to the contract award. So was this malice driven, or plain stupidity? His best course of action is to negotiate a settlement out of Court including a fulsome public apology for his stupidity. I hope he does so, because I resent that taxpayers may have to pay for his pigheaded approach. He has no defence.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  17th June 2016

      I agree. If he had any evidence we’d have seen it already. He miscalculated that the Auditor -General would investigate the matter and might find something.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: