The Salmond family is wanting their estate made bankrupt. It comes out of a judicial review over the handling of a couple of complaints against him by civil servants that turned out to be “tainted”.
In other words, his defence was successful, but the cost of winning proved too high.
Noeline, I have no idea what her lawyers cost, but you would hope as part of the deal she gets the bill covered. But I doubt it.
And then Siouxsie Wiles, who you may remember took her employer, Auckland University, to court and won.
She took mediation arbitration – it went back and forward for a while, but ultimately ended in court. During Covid she was harassed, she claimed her employer should have done more to protect her.
She has now launched a crowd funding page to help pay her bills.
The commonality here is all three appear to be on the right side. They have been wronged, they have had to defend themselves, and yet all three appear out of pocket for the experience.
Wiles has spent thousands – hundreds of thousands. She has taken loans, her and her husband, she won but she is paying off loans.
Inherently here is a fault with the law. The costs, even when awarded your way, never cover the bill. My question: why not?
Is justice really served or seen to be done if you can be victorious, if you can defend your name, your honour, or reputation and still go broke?
Doesn’t that mean the deepest pockets will always triumph?
The State v Salmond. A sport v a coach. The university v a microbiologist.
It's one thing to settle – yes it saves court time, but do you settle because you will be broke if you don’t?
Is being broke and right worth it? Is launching a crowdfunding bid acceptable when you didn’t do anything wrong?
Is the justice system serving us properly when even the victorious and validated aren’t really winners?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
Noeline, I have no idea what her lawyers cost, but you would hope as part of the deal she gets the bill covered. But I doubt it.
And then Siouxsie Wiles, who you may remember took her employer, Auckland University, to court and won.
She took mediation arbitration – it went back and forward for a while, but ultimately ended in court. During Covid she was harassed, she claimed her employer should have done more to protect her.
She has now launched a crowd funding page to help pay her bills.
The commonality here is all three appear to be on the right side. They have been wronged, they have had to defend themselves, and yet all three appear out of pocket for the experience.
Wiles has spent thousands – hundreds of thousands. She has taken loans, her and her husband, she won but she is paying off loans.
Inherently here is a fault with the law. The costs, even when awarded your way, never cover the bill. My question: why not?
Is justice really served or seen to be done if you can be victorious, if you can defend your name, your honour, or reputation and still go broke?
Doesn’t that mean the deepest pockets will always triumph?
The State v Salmond. A sport v a coach. The university v a microbiologist.
It's one thing to settle – yes it saves court time, but do you settle because you will be broke if you don’t?
Is being broke and right worth it? Is launching a crowdfunding bid acceptable when you didn’t do anything wrong?
Is the justice system serving us properly when even the victorious and validated aren’t really winners?
Mike Hosking is a New Zealand television and radio broadcaster. He currently hosts The Mike Hosking Breakfast show on NewstalkZB on weekday mornings - where this article was sourced.
13 comments:
Is it mere coincidence that "the law" is an anagram of wealth?
I have absolutely no sympathy for Siouxsie Wiles. Her vilification of the "Listener 8" scientists over their questioning of the absurd assertion that Maori "traditional knowledge" is the same as science was scandalous and defamatory. 2 of those scientists lost their jobs due in part to her Maori-love wokeness. She should have been taken to court. As to her suit of the University, that too was absurd. Her public pronouncements during Covid were made as a private person NOT as a university employee. The University had no duty of care to "protect" her, and if it did, what could it have done? The hundreds of thousands she spent pursuing her poor-me "case" against the University are her karma for being so woke and for her despicable behavior toward the Listener 8.
A comment slightly out of context. Never have any dealings with known litigious people
Siouxie Wiles' case is particularly appalling and she should not have to face such a debt.
I have seen cases in our public sector where people have been bullied out of employment very unfairly. They suffer reputational, career and financial damage but receive a scant payout only if they are lucky - nowhere near the financial losses that they have experienced.
Surely New Zealand can do better.
David Lillis
Well said.
Irrespective of ones opinion of the defendant/plaintiff the reality is: Justice is Money - Just Money.
Example: -
In November 2025, UK far-right activist Tommy Robinson was found not guilty of a terror offence after refusing to give police access to his phone in July 2024, when he was arbitrarily detained in a public place.
Robinson refused to give officers the PIN to his phone during the stop, and insisted that the device contained confidential journalistic material.
Robinson’s barrister, argued that the detention was politically motivated, and said the “predominant influence” on the police constable’s decision to stop him was: “Oh look, it's Tommy Robinson”.
Judge, Sam Goozee, said he could not be sure that the police stop had been lawful. The stop, he said, “gave the impression of an arbitrary decision based on who you are”. And added that the decision appeared to be based on a “protected characteristic”.
As justice is money — just money —Robinson who is quoted as saying, “Elon Musk I am forever grateful. If you didn't step in and fund my legal fight for this then I'd probably be in jail”.
and
https://breakingviewsnz.blogspot.com/2024/11/ross-meurant-finding-fraudsters-in.html
David: Yes, I agree that people, in general, who are successful in their court cases shouldn't have to pay court costs or reimburse the loosing side for their costs, however, Wiles did choose to sue the University in what, to my mind, was a frivolous suite, and she should not have won the case. It was her choice to sue; did you expect the University to cover her lawyer fees?
The bigger issue is our legal system. Lauded as being wonderful and all good things…it’s simply not! It’s massively inefficient, oftentimes ineffective (here we go, another appeal!) and hugely self serving to those who operate it.
How long do we have to wait to get a court fixture? Sometimes years. And the “legal” processes are tortuous and so often just stupid! Endless delay processes built up over the years by our learned but impractical nongs.
And how often do we find out years later that the judgement was wrong. After weeks of deliberations the courts so often just make stupid decisions. Off to the appeal court we go…again!
The cost of our legal processes are ridiculous. Lawyers charge something like $500 - $1,000 per hour for their time. And it’s to get advice based on a system that is designed to be laborious and inefficient. Judges too are on huge salaries and the most generous retirement packages of any public servant.
Maybe we will be saved by AI!
To LNF:
Well I have had dealings with "known litigious people". My 96 year-old father got sued by such a person and had to pay thousands to defend himself. That person's lawyer even apologized to my dad for his client's bad behavior after it was all over.
Totally agree. Example the Maori/Treaty issue: lawyers have made a killing over the last 40 years through taxpayer funded legal processes. And have the decisions been well based? Well clearly not. Look at the Lands decision almost 50 years ago. Complete and utter tosh! A judgement that the Crown’s relationship with Maori is “…akin to a partnership…” which has no credible evidential basis. And this was the court that first invented the so called “…principles of the Treaty…” These decisions by the Appeal Court represent huge over reach by the judiciary and have put NZ society into a form of apartheid.
Mr Finlayson x National and Mr Palmer x Labour MPs- orta be able to exrtapolate on you perspicacisty Annonymous re on going gravey train - but undoubted for the good of some even if the harm is to the majority
Very Well said !
The law is deliberately made confusing and obtuse by the Legal profession so they can make big money. Why do lawyers charge so much? A commentator on these blogs is always banging on about supermarket and electricity cartels. I think the legal profession is far and away the biggest cartel. A lot of people who save lives and do good for society (doctors, nurses, fire fighters etc) deserve to get paid well for what they do. But lawyers? How do they really contribute to society?
Post a Comment
Thanks for engaging in the debate!
Because this is a public forum, we will only publish comments that are respectful and do NOT contain links to other sites. We appreciate your cooperation.