cougar v's qld government and others, page-3

The court case and $34mill claim against the Qld Govt and 3 employees imo in no way limits or precludes subsequent damages claims against other vocal parties like Damien O'Sullivan, KCCG reps and even Dorothy Pratt and then further a field to newspaper and radio journos and editors.

The basis?

I'm pretty sure each of the above parties have some duty of care to investigate the correctness of comments they broadcast and the words they choose to use ... the intense vilification they heaped on Cougar was certainly damaging and the company and shareholders suffered damages.

I would like to see the damages net widened to include the above parties, for lessons to be learned and to become case law as imo there was an untruthful, unlawful and opportunistic campaign against Cougar using psuedo scientific arguments that were unchecked, unproven and without peer review and other checks and balances ... these "arguments" became "indefensible fact" used to cripple a company that was reasonably going about its lawful business within an approved regulatory framework ... a dangerous precedent was set for trial by media.


Dex