Hagamans v Little continues

The defamation case that earl and Lani Hagaman have taken against Andrew Little continues in Wellington.

Little hasn’t been present all the time, he was in Parliament for Question Time yesterday afternoon.

Stuff: Defamation action ‘not about bankrupting’ Andrew Little, Lani Hagaman says

The wife of a hotel owner suing Labour leader Andrew Little for defamation has denied wanting to bankrupt the politician over comments he made about a Niue resort deal.

Lani Hagaman, the wife of Scenic Hotel Group founder Earl Hagaman, said receiving an apology and legal costs were her main concern, during the second day of a civil jury trial at the High Court in Wellington.

The Hagamans are seeking $2.3 million in damages for comments Little made about a $101,000 donation they made to the National Party during the 2014 election, and a contract their Scenic Hotel Group won a month later to manage the Matavai resort in Niue, which receives government funding.

Newshub: Andrew Little will pay any defamation costs from his own pocket

Mr Little says he’s taking personal responsibility and will pick up the bill should damages be awarded to complainants in a defamation case.

“I am meeting my costs. The offers I have made to settle, had they been accepted, would have been fully funded by me personally,” he said on Tuesday.

No taxpayer or Labour Party funds will be used to cover the legal fees or potential damages.

“I have a personal view about taking personal responsibility if you’re found to have done something wrong.”

He says here he is taking personal responsibility but last year had refused to apologise, even after the Auditor General, after a request to investigate by Little, found no problem with the awarding of a contract to Scenic Circle.

Little hasn’t denied making the statements but is claiming qualified privilege in making them. He has said that he has responsibilities as Leader of the Opposition to hold the Government to account, but there must also be a responsibility not to make serious accusations without any evidence.

In court Lani Hagaman has said that Little should have check facts before making the accusations.

Regardless of the outcome it doesn’t look flash for Little. He says he was only targeting the Government (serious claims without facts still looks irresponsible there) but must have been aware that his comments would look bad Hagamans and Scenic Circle.

UPDATE: Newshub: Labour leader Andrew Little gives evidence in defamation case

Mr Tizard said the Labour leader will have two defences to the defamation case.

The first is that the comments were made under qualified privilege, and the second is that “the words do not mean what the plaintiffs think they mean”.

On Little’s offers to settle:

Under questioning from his defence lawyer John Tizard, Mr Little said he became “frustrated” after trying for months to resolve the proceedings before they went to court.

“Nothing ever seemed to be acceptable,” said Mr Little.

Mr Little first offered to pay $26,000 towards legal fees and apologise, but that offer was rejected.

On March 14 this year Mr Little made another offer of $100,000 and again apologised, but that was again rejected.

Mr Little said he and his wife would have funded the six-figure offer by taking out a bank loan against their Island Bay family home.

“It was the most I could offer,” Mr Little said. The couple does not own any other property.

He apologised personally in court:

He said he did not apologise to Ms Hagaman as he had not mentioned her by name in his media statements, but during court on Wednesday he offered her an apology as she watched from the public gallery.

“I apologise to her now for any hurt,” Mr Little said.

He claimed frustration and a lack of progress in attempts to negotiate:

Mr Little said he made multiple proposals through his solicitor, but would get back rejection letters which offered scant direction on the way the Hagamans wanted to move forward.

But under cross examination he conceded that he had been sent a letter outlining the Hagaman’s demands.

Little: There was no guidance being given, it was the most bizarre form of negotiation I had ever participated in.

Newshub: He said offers to settle were flatly rejected, with little feedback given on how the couple wanted to proceed, but the Hagamans lawyer shot back.

Richard Fowler (for the Hagamans): The proposition that the Hagamans never spelt out exactly what they wanted, that’s to take your words from your evidence, is not true, is it.

Little: I don’t accept that.

Newshub: Fowler said a letter sent to Little in December, and acknowledged by his solicitor, laid out the Hagamans demands. It detailed how an apology would happen, and noted any damages would be distributed to charities.

Fowler: …that the Hagamans had never spelt out what they would require to settle is just plain wrong, isn’t it. Can you face that?

Little: Not plain wrong, I said that I’ve conceded the point that this the closest we get.

The trial will continue tomorrow.

 

Leave a comment

123 Comments

  1. Alan Wilkinson

     /  5th April 2017

    A fool and his money soon to be parted.

    Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  5th April 2017

    hope you’re not talking about the NZ taxpayer….seems that one way or another ,they always ,get the bill.I know Little is responsible for any award,but the wider story is interesting.

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  5th April 2017

      I hope that you are not implying that AL will be so dishonest as to try to shuffle off any costs onto the taxpayer. I don’t like him, but would find this unlikely.

      Reply
    • How’s the “wider story interesting” blazer.

      I see no wider story myself. I see a man endeavouring to make political mileage and in doing so he defamed an innocent party. I inferred by Little’s implication that the Hagamans donated and that their reward was a government contract. The weight of the statement places the ball very much more in the Hagaman’s court v some imagined nameless Govt flunky awarding them a contract. They stand to gain entirely under the scenario he painted. I see his being an effective opposition as having no legs myself.

      This is my interpretation of his combined statements, is opinion only, and has no legal standing.

      Reply
      • Bill Brown

         /  5th April 2017

        Blazer has no idea how this is a wider story.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  5th April 2017

          dear oh dear Bill ..I certainly do…as a teaser can I direct you toward the Skc DEAL…..the stench was ..over whelming.

          Reply
          • Bill Brown

             /  5th April 2017

            [Please don’t do that here. PG]

            Reply
            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              Bill ,don’t blow a foofoo valve Bill,do you condone..cronyism,or do you believe in tender for projects.

            • Bill Brown

               /  5th April 2017

              Blazer do tell

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @Bill …it would fall on..deaf..ears.

  3. Kevin

     /  5th April 2017

    So it has been laughed out of court yet, then?

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  5th April 2017

      No, and the people whose reputation as business owners was at stake won’t be laughing.

      Reply
  4. Anonymous Coward

     /  5th April 2017

    Have any of the documents been released? This whole thing is lacking detail at the moment.

    Reply
    • Bill Brown

       /  5th April 2017

      Guess it’s before the Court at this point

      Reply
    • David

       /  5th April 2017

      the auditor generals report should suffice

      Reply
      • Anonymous Coward

         /  5th April 2017

        From the little I’ve been able to work out his words may have been to vague to reach the threshold. IIRC he said it ‘seemed’ suspect, not that it definitely was.

        Reply
        • One of a kind

           /  5th April 2017

          Hmmm I think the words ‘stunk to high heaven’ infer a different meaning than ‘seemed’ I would have thought.

          Reply
          • Kitty Catkin

             /  5th April 2017

            Well, he will probably say that he wasn’t implying anything and if the rest of us inferred that he was, that’s our (wrong) personal nference, but those words sounded to me as if he was saying that there was something very wrong going on. Stinking to high Heaven….what else could he mean ?

            Reply
  5. Bill Brown

     /  5th April 2017

    He gave a lame apology of sorts so clearly one was due so why not just give a proper one and move on. The Auditor General made a call on it so it’s hardly a surprise its ended up here. Stupidity like this shows he’s no leader to run NZ.

    Reply
  6. Troupe

     /  5th April 2017

    On the ridiculous Jordan Williams level of award this one looks like a total home run for the Hagamans.

    If a 20 something weasel who manipulates innocent women like Rachel McGregor for his own means can get a lazy mill, an established and recognised pair of businesspeople with a lifetimes work and achievement should be up for at least what they asked for.

    Reply
    • Nelly Smickers

       /  5th April 2017

      Would have to agree with you on that *Toupe*…..although as Wayne just said it will most likely come down to whether *Angry Andy* can establish his qualified privilege defense.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  5th April 2017

        There isn’t any real comparison between this and the tedious Colin Craig case.

        Rachel McGergor seems to have allowed the relationship to become unprofessional, never a good idea when people are working as closely as they were. Massages and gushing texts are never a good idea; it’s far too easy for the other person to get the wrong idea.

        If AL could have claimed Parliamentary privilege, doesn’t Wayne think that he would have ???? Or does he think that AL isn’t aware of this ? It would never work here, the remarks were not made in the house, I think.

        Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  5th April 2017

        Hard to see qualified privilege rescuing him based on this description of it:
        http://www.defamationupdate.co.nz/guide-to-defamation-law

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  5th April 2017

          I wondered if he had the option of requesting a judge-only trial but it seems from googling that this is only very rarely agreed to, & only where the High Court determines that the question of whether there was defamation involves matters too complex for a jury to understand & decide. This obviously isn’t.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  5th April 2017

            Jury trial is a BIG plus for Little.Look at some past findings…!

            Reply
            • Bill Brown

               /  5th April 2017

              You speaking from experience

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              Each one’s a different case with a different jury Blaze.

  7. What if Andrew is found guilty and resigns from parliament? would be the best thing for Labour! perhaps Keep Annette on as Jacinda’s deputy…..

    Reply
    • Kevin

       /  5th April 2017

      Andy has the union backing him and I doubt very much he’d be resigning over this and hand the reigns over to the identity politics faction – he’ll just let the union foot the bill and carry on as usual.

      But if it does happen then we’ll end up with our own version of the US Democrat party where what’s between your legs is more important than what’s between your ears.

      Reply
    • Bill Brown

       /  5th April 2017

      @shane interesting point. If he loses we have a convicted defamer running a main party! Credibility issues all round.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  5th April 2017

        We had a “smiling assassin” and no one was too concerned when NZ’s international reputation was ruined when tax haven status was confirmed.

        Reply
        • Tell us more about the moniker of “smiling assassin” blazer. I’ve never seen anything but hearsay before his PMship to support the title. Key was hardly harsh on his cabinet, for example, anything but. He held on to his ministers through thick and thin. I surmised that the title was therefore sour grapes.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  5th April 2017

            the title was conferred on him when he was a senior forex gambler at Merrill Lynch.Merrill of cause became a basket case and had to be bailed by another basket case…BofA…at U.S taxpayers expense….of course.

            Reply
            • Bill Brown

               /  5th April 2017

              A forex gambler ….. really. Your pathetic

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @Bill a reason why you think my statement was ‘pathetic’ would be ..very good.’def…gambling…’take risky action in the hope of a desired result.
              “he was gambling on the success of his satellite TV channel”
              synonyms: take a chance, take a risk, take a leap in the dark, leave things to chance, speculate’…on the ..’money’..Billy.

          • Gezza

             /  5th April 2017

            In 1995, he [Key] joined Merrill Lynch as head of Asian foreign exchange in Singapore. That same year he was promoted to Merrill’s global head of foreign exchange, based in London, where he may have earned around US$2.25 million a year including bonuses, which is about NZ$5 million at 2001 exchange rates. Some co-workers called him “the smiling assassin” for maintaining his usual cheerfulness while sacking dozens (some say hundreds) of staff after heavy losses from the 1998 Russian financial crisis.

            https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Key#Before_politics

            Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  5th April 2017

          NZ was never confirmed as a tax haven. It should sue you for damages, B.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  5th April 2017

            beg to differ Al….as you have BEEN TOLD…former Reserve Bank Governor and ex leader of the National Party stated emphatically that NZ is a tax haven.NO ONE is more qualified than him.Begin proceedings!Bol.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th April 2017

              Nonsense, B. Where did Brash ever say NZ was a tax haven?

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              DYOR.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th April 2017

              I did. He didn’t. You lied.

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              ‘Brash, who has previously chaired four national committees of inquiry into tax matters said that if the zero tax regime for foreigners was doing damage to New Zealand’s reputation, “it isn’t worth 25 million bucks. But I don’t know how much damage it is doing.”

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th April 2017

              Exactly. You lied.

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @AL..you accused me of lying..your position Brash never indicated NZ is a tax haven..my position he did…lets have a bet…you name the amount..maybe we can get P.G to escrow it and pay the winner with a donation to YourNZ..put up or shut up.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th April 2017

              I’m not betting anything. I’m challenging you to supply a source to substantiate your claim since I didn’t find one. If you can’t or won’t you’ll continue to be judged to have lied.

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              you are a pussy Al..FOS….’it’s tax evasion, rather than tax avoidance,” Brash said.

              “It seems to me that people involved in Panama structures are almost certainly trying to evade tax and I think that’s entirely reprehensible.”

              Brash said everyone has to pay their fair share of tax. “I myself would never attempt to hide anything in a tax haven. There is an ethical question.”

              “If we do have a tax haven here, I’d be very unhappy. What’s going on in Panama seems entirely inappropriate, if not criminal. If that’s what’s happening, and New Zealanders are playing a substantive part in that, then that’s reprehensible. “

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th April 2017

              So Brash never said NZ was a tax haven and you lied when you said he did – both originally and again today.

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @Al…you pooed your pants already today….go to bed.

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=11616790

              In particular:

              “According to the firm’s documents, the 12,000 or more offshore trusts in New Zealand pay no tax here, their beneficiaries are not registered and their accounts not filed with any public body…..[the government] has no good reason not to take unilateral action against the use of our law to set up tax-avoidance trusts here. If an effective response would simply send that business to the usual havens, so be it. New Zealand is getting nothing except accountancy fees from trusts set up by foreigners for the purpose of not paying tax anywhere. We are running with the hare and hunting with the hounds.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th April 2017

              You lie, deny and then get potty-mouthed, B. Not a great look.

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @Al,no I challenged you on veracity and you ..folded.

          • Blazer

             /  5th April 2017

            Key made this tax loophole. The law was changed effective September 2011 under NATIONAL.

            “Foreign investors in a New Zealand fund with only foreign investments will now bear no New Zealand tax on their income, whether or not the fund distributes that income. The tax change, which came into force in September 2011, should make New Zealand managed funds an attractive alternative to funds resident in Luxembourg, Ireland or the Caymans.”

            “September 2011,” almost 3 years into National’s first term. NATIONAL created the loopholes.

            Reply
    • One of a kind

       /  5th April 2017

      Maybe they could offer it to his replacement coming in on the list.

      It would be no worse than when Labour gave it to Little.

      Reply
  8. Zedd

     /  5th April 2017

    as this is ‘currently before the courts’ shouldn’t there be a ban on such comments ?

    btw; anyone who gives ‘large donations’ to the current Govt. should be investigated for possible conflict of interest ? (IMHO) :/

    Reply
    • Kitty Catkin

       /  5th April 2017

      I think that donations are made to a party, not the government as such. $100,000 would be a ludicrously small amount to give a government.

      Reply
      • Kitty Catkin

         /  5th April 2017

        It would just go into general funds, if it was given to the government , There would be little point in doing so-one might as well pay extra taxes.

        Reply
    • Pete Kane

       /  5th April 2017

      Fair call Z. But I think if you take out a couple of YNZ regs. you will find it is a ‘remarkably’ small group of commentators on this subject (and on similar targets). Hopefully he/she will find its way home to Blubba sometime soon.

      Reply
    • Gezza

       /  5th April 2017

      As all the information we are discussing is widely known & in the public arena, and what isn’t is now being publicly reported by the media, and we are not members of the jury, any opinions we might or anyone express as to whether we think he will be found guilty or otherwise are hughly unlikely to be either unlawful or actionable.

      Reply
  9. Nelly Smickers

     /  5th April 2017

    Hiyaa PG, once again I see my above response to *Kitty* seems to have disappeared!
    I simply queried if KC understood the difference between *Parliamentary Privilege* and *Qualified Privilege* after she gave Wayne another right bollocking 😡

    Don’t tell me I’ve gone and entered an incorrect email again…..it could be the current switch-over from Yahoo to Spark?

    Reply
    • You mistyped an email address on an earlier comment (a ‘t’ on the end) but I parked the one you are referring to. Your comment was not really as you describe. You wrote:

      TBH *Catkin* – for someone with a supposed *Masters Degree* and great knowledge of parliament, I’m just a little surprised you don’t know the….difference. Then again 😄

      And you included an image which was petty and personal, something you have been warned not to do often enough. To be frank I’m getting a bit sick of explaining over and over when it doesn’t seem to register.

      Reply
      • Nelly Smickers

         /  5th April 2017

        *And your call of course PG*…. tbh I didn’t realise the cat-image was anything other than a bit of harmless fun, particularly with it being open-season on Wayne….. after-all it’s been posted here previously for a laff XD .

        Anyway thanks once again for taking the time PG – I was starting to think it may have been because I’m a woman…. LOL

        Reply
        • You’ve been told often enough about “harmless fun” that too easily escalates into personal shit storms. I don’t want to keep explaining.

          Reply
  10. I have added to the post with coverage from today in court.

    Reply
    • Maggy Wassilieff

       /  5th April 2017

      This is such a train wreck for Little.

      Couldn’t he have figured out , or got someone to explain to him, that Mrs Hagaman was a significant partner in the Scenic Hotel Group?

      Why mention that he didn’t know what the Hagaman’s wanted for an apology, when they had provided a clear account of their demands?

      Reply
      • It’s an odd way to apologise by asking what the apology needs to be like.

        Reply
        • Anonymous Coward

           /  5th April 2017

          He’s making the case that he’s tried to settle but they were determined to go to court.
          Bet you that if he loses all they’ll get is the $26 000 they turned down first.

          Reply
        • Gezza

           /  5th April 2017

          Andy was sweating in Court in the short clip they showed on 1Ewes when he said the Hagamans would not tell him what they wanted in an apology & their lawyer produced a letter sent to him & said, yes they did. Possum in headlights moment. The media are very cruel to Andy.

          Reply
        • Blazer

           /  5th April 2017

          I wouldn’t think so…sometimes…’sorry’ is…not..enough.

          Reply
          • It’s a damn good place to start though.

            I wonder if Little got himself caught between common sense and trying to be a no nonsense never-back-down political leader.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              In my opinion that’s what happened. After the AG’s report I figured a pretty abject full public apology would’ve been the quickest & easiest way out. Once he decided not to do that, things got immensely tricky.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  5th April 2017

              I’m inclined to think he got some bad amateur legal advice re qualified privilege.

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              @ Al. Well, we’ll see. If he said it only in the House, he’s covered. But I think he repeated it outside the House. Winston was always wily enough to simply refer to his statements in the House I think.

            • He didn’t say it in the house. First time was press release. Next five times were media interviews.

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              Oh, ok. I though it all stated with a ‘stinks to high heaven’ claim first made in the House. Ooh … I think he’s deep in the grotney pudding now.

            • Little has been sued for defamation over a written statement issued to media on April 18, in which he said the donation and subsequent contract award “stink to high heaven”, followed by five comments made by Little to individual media outlets making similar remarks.

              http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/91133488/andrew-little-in-high-court-over-defamation-claim

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              Cheers. Hadn’t seen that. Been a bit one-eyed since Sunday & getting that checked out. 😬

            • Bill Brown

               /  5th April 2017

              How do you get caught between common sense and commenting in the house PG? ….. common sense tells you that parliamentary privilege is in the house only – not x5 times outside! Little is toast

  11. Blazer

     /  5th April 2017

    plenty ,getting ahead of themselves here..let the court decide.

    Reply
    • Gezza

       /  5th April 2017

      Well, the jury decides, unless the judge decides otherwise, which is unlikely. The Judge determines the damages if there is one, and can override a jury recommendation, if I recall correctly from the reporting on the Williams v Craig case. Still, it’s interesting to speculate, so people do.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  5th April 2017

        speculation…I recall the Cairns case..90% thought he was a..goner.

        Reply
        • Gezza

           /  5th April 2017

          “speculation”

          Yup, I’m not pretending it’s anything else. (I thought Cairns had a good chance of walking free given the dodginess of certain witnesses. There’s less murk with this one imo. Quick summary of the key issues at the end from his High Salariedness. Off they go for a cuppa & sandwiches & a chat. Back wid de verdict. 3 hours max, I’ll go for.)

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  5th April 2017

            yes G..since the Cairns verdict..90% of people,thought,he would…get off!Bol.

            Reply
            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              Link?

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @G..you may need Kitty and her..latin ..roots ..tonite..

              ‘Inquissima haec bellorum condicio est: prospera omnes sibi indicant, aduersa uni imputantur’

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              No, I don’t think so. Bit too amorphous that one for the context we’re discussing here. I don’t usually take a punt on something like this – didn’t in the Craig case. And so far I haven’t seen Andy’s defence arguments. I know that it has a chance. But at this point I think the Hagamans might very well win. The attempted apologies I think will undermine his defence with a jury. They only have to decide if he defamed them. And I’m in a betting mood on a court case for a change. Could be wrong. We’ll see. As risks go, a bet on this is nothing buddy.

          • Gezza

             /  5th April 2017

            Btw, if I had bet on Williams v Craig, I’d have lost. I really thought a jury would decide few people knew or cared a fig about Jordan Williams & that the pair of them showed themselves to be so pathetic it would be a travesty to conclude either one had made the other look bad.

            Reply
  12. Maggy Wassilieff

     /  5th April 2017

    Thanks PG for providing the updates here.
    The usual online news sources are being a bit remiss with keeping the public informed.
    Such a contrast to the John Banks and Colin Craig cases.

    Reply
    • It’s odd they’ve been less excited about it. And it’s a short trial too.

      But the media may see it as uncontroversial with a predictable outcome, perhaps, so they are waiting until what happens next. They have already been priming Ardern for the big job.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  5th April 2017

        ‘they have already been priming Ardern for the big job’…are you guessing,what evidence can you supply to endorse this,are you just being mischievious?

        Reply
        • Journalists promoted Ardern into the deputy leadership and succeeded, and have been talking her up since. For example making a big thing about preferred PM polls.

          Some media have written off Little months ago, and they don’t want two boring men to try and make their stories out of.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  5th April 2017

            so you contend journalists select the Labour front bench…do you stand by that?

            Reply
            • I didn’t say that. But some of them talked up a change of deputy big time, and then it happened. It’s likely they influenced that, especially given Annette Kings sudden change of mind.

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @PG…this is quite clear and not ambiguous at all..’Journalists promoted Ardern into the deputy leadership and succeeded, ‘…you now retract that statement..yes?

            • patupaiarehe

               /  5th April 2017

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              as you have BEEN TOLD…former Reserve Bank Governor and ex leader of the National Party stated emphatically that NZ is a tax haven.

              Haven’t seen it, Blazer. None of your cherry picks above amount to that either. You now retract that statement, yes?

            • Gezza

               /  5th April 2017

              She’s all go here tonight patu. 🙄

            • patupaiarehe

               /  5th April 2017

              Sure is G. 😀

            • Blazer

               /  5th April 2017

              @G..wrong thread…bone up on evasion and avoidance and the definition of a tax haven instead of trying to be a ..wise guy.

            • Gezza

               /  6th April 2017

              That’s not the issue. The issue is whether Brash specifically said that NZ is a tax haven. That’s what you say, & asked to back it up you come up with a google search query & a couple of quotes in which all I can see is Brash saying what one is that he hopes NZ is not one. You made a very specific claim, Alan called you on it, the onus is on you to back it up, you haven’t. So put up or shaddup instead of trying to be a smart ass.

  13. Blazer

     /  6th April 2017

    Brash may as well have said …this fruit has a yellow skin ,with an edible white centre and a bend at the stem,I hope its not a…banana…All the pro govt supporters love Transparency Int…http://www.noted.co.nz/money/economy/new-zealand-the-little-tax-haven-that-could/

    Reply
  14. Kevin

     /  6th April 2017

    And meanwhile over on the blog of the damned they’re allowing comments like:

    https://thestandard.org.nz/labours-leadership-team/#comment-1317646 (Jenny Kirk)

    https://thestandard.org.nz/labours-leadership-team/#comment-1317642 (OAB)

    https://thestandard.org.nz/labours-leadership-team/#comment-1317628 (DoublePlusGood)

    Jenny Kirk is a well known person and what’s she saying about the Hagamans is defamatory. For someone who makes himself out to be such a legal expert LPrent sure knows how to put The Standard in legal danger.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Nelly Smickers Cancel 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