0
sounds like fulvio sammut works for smh i hope d round and smh cop it the ass and are ordered to reimburse all the fines resulting from this smear campaign
Chuck Norris has the greatest Poker-Face of all time. He won the 1983 World Series of Poker, despite holding only a Joker, a Get out of Jail Free Monopoly card, a 2 of clubs, 7 of spades and a green #4 card from the game Uno.
Friends all, may I ask we all temper our outpourings on this issue with common sense and fairness. I would hate to see any injustice done.
These are civil issues which will be resolved by the worthy Courts of this land in due course, fairly and justly and on the evidence.
It does not help anyone to prejudge issues and perhaps come to unfair or wrong conclusions which may influence others.
None of the protagonists are assisted by uninformed comment. Let's wait and see.
Remember in the castle the bloke who ended up representing the Harrigans was a QC, it's like, the top a lawyer can get to I think....maybe like, the SAS of the lawyer world...so to have him associated with what seems to be a cut and dry request...even though he is a 'Non-party' (does that mean he is the judge or something?) it seems very unusual he would deal with a case that would happen every day....
But to be honest, I ain't a lawyer so mayber they do deal with cases such as this..
Right enough Fulvio - we'll see what happens once they wade through what sounds like a fairly extensive correspondence. It could just as easily be all social.
Kill all the lawyers! There are some things a rat won"t do. Professional courtesy in a shark tank! Heard 'em all.
Any more lawyer jokes and I'll report you to the RSPCA!
is that because to call a lawyer a shark is demeaning to the good name of sharks everywhere?
C'mon the
Rats, sharks, it's all true.
It's just that it hurts our feelings....
Interesting in that they say at least 281 emails.
Is that normal Fulvio? Is it like....we have got copies...so you better show us anyway?
Interesting case. The decision reported above was in respect of an application for non party discovery. These are quite common.
What happens is that a plaintiff (in this case WA Rugby) sues a defendant (in this case Mr Round) for damages (money) or an injunction (to stop him from doing something detrimental to the plaintiff). In this case they allege that Mr Round, as an employee, breached his contract obligations to maintain the privacy of the plaintiff's confidential information.
The plaintiff in this case seeks to find evidence (to support its case) and that evidence is in the possession of the Fairfax media who are not a party to these proceedings.
Hence the term "non party discovery" - they are seeking to "discover" information in the possession of an entity not named as a party in the court case.
At the moment, it seems hard to see how Fairfax would have a serious appeal point.
In civil court proceedings parties can and invariably do, ask for discovery, that is to say, for the other party to produce all relevant documents for inspection by the other.
Sometimes documents exist, but are no longer in the other party's possession, or have been lost or destroyed, but copies are in the hands of third parties, or it is part of the case that documents have been wrongly given to a third party, and one of the protagonists wants to know what documents, if any, were given to the third party.
If the third party does not cooperate in producing the documents sought, an application can be made to the court for orders to that effect.The court then decides whether and what documents are required to be produced.
It can be one document, or thousands, depending on what is in issue.Documents can include electronic documents such as emails.
This is all that is happening here, from what I can see.
Don't know if that helps, Gerry...
Fulvio - I completely understand your reticance to comment on the above case as there are more twists and turns that may appear or may not be known to use - however I have found myself in a bit of a pickle :-
As the Treasurer of a Rugby Orgainisation I became the unwitting partner to player inducements for the Under 10's (mainly in the form of McHappy Meal Vouchers) - how ever there was one lad with a little bit of "history" - anyways one night I ran into a friend in a bar who offered me a considerable sum of "Jelly Babies" after I had had 1 wine gum to many for the story - with a little bit of sustainable evidence (guess they knew i was a little bit upset cause the kid had actually nicked some of my McHappy meal vouchers ) - anyways there was a few emails sent back and forth - and do you know the Rugby Club actually want to sue me for telling the truth - Can I blame this Journo at all - I mean if they go for the Journo then they will leave me alone - right....
61 years between Grand Slams Was the wait worth it - Ya betta baby