To me, as an interstate non-lawyer I have some major issues with the Statement of Claim that was submitted to the Supreme Court. <\/p>\n
In the claim at the top of the document, the solicitor claims ‘Damages for Injurous Falsehood in the amount of $150,000.00 PER MONTH’. <\/p>\n
In the summary of relief, the solicitor is claiming ‘Damages for Injurous Falsehood in the amount of $150,000.00’<\/p>\n
I am guessing that this little oversignht is going to cost 2 Clix a LOT of money, if they win. [They will not of course, but that is another matter] I suspect that if this actually gets anywhere that the Statement of Claim will be amended. <\/p>\n
In addition, the solicitor has failed to show that the comments made are ‘False and Malicious’. It is very difficult to prove to a court that a persons PERSONAL OPINION is FALSE. Without proof in any way suggesting that the opinions listed in the document are made up, I suspect that those claims will be thrown out. The problem is that the statements are perported to be both ‘False’ and ‘Malicious’.<\/p>\n
I can just see the court case now where the people quoted are asked about the basis of their statements, and the case will be thrown out.<\/p>\n
Simon Wright has not published the letters from 2 Clix, and has taken some time to let the people on Whirlpool know. Therefore I suspect that what has been happening is that 2 Clix has been using this court case to attempt to leverage Simon – firstly threatening the court case, and now actually submitting the paperwork. 2 Clix must be really annoyed by now since it has cost them a signicicant amount of money to get to this point. And it will only get worse. <\/p>\n
It would appear to me that the lawyer has put in just enough detail to make this threat credible, but not enough to actually hold a hope of winning. That would have required a LOT more work, showing how each statement quoted was False and Malicious. That also suggest that 2 Clix is after the threads being removed, and an undisclosed settlement to make it go away. <\/p>\n
In Summary: The solicitor stuffed up and is really only claiming $150K rather than $150K\/Month. Also the solicitor has only done enough work to use the claim as a leverage for a financial settlement.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
To me, as an interstate non-lawyer I have some major issues with the Statement of Claim that was submitted to the Supreme Court. In the claim at the top of the document, the solicitor claims ‘Damages for Injurous Falsehood in …<\/p>\n