Australia's largest stock trading and investment forum Australia's #1 stock forum

which is possibly why ch 10 offered to settle the case before...

First 47 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Iceman90

6,427 Posts.

4

23/04/24

22:15

Post #: 73485507
Share

Originally posted by Reaper11: ↑

That's a problem isn't it. Someone with no money can sue any of us. We spend our life savings successfully defending the action, then at the end the person who initiated the proceedings says "I don't have any money" when presented with the bill. Leaving the person who won the case, who played no part in it going to court in the first place, broke because they've incurred the expense of being tied up in court. For a matter to be the subject of defamation in court it should have to be objectively serious. Matters like Reynolds calling Higgins a "lying cow" and Higgins saying whatever nasty thing she supposedly said about Reynolds shouldn't be anywhere near a courtroom. They're just catfights that should be beneath what's required for a court to adjudicate on them. As for Lehrmann, he should be required to work 14 hours a day, 7 days a week until he's paid the bill. If that means he's doing so until his dying day then so be it. He caused the bills to be incurred. He should be the one who pays them, not the parties that successfully defended the action he chose to bring.

. Reaper

Expand

which is possibly why ch 10 offered to settle the case before trial.

they knew that even if they won, Lehrmann would not be able to pay whilst losing would be an even worse result for them.

better to just make the whole thing go away beforehand.
4 Upvote

Reply

There are more pages in this discussion • 188 more messages in this thread...

First 47 Last