(too old to reply)
A cancer removed from Aus cricket
Dechucka
2013-07-16 20:40:22 UTC
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
eusebius
2013-07-17 09:08:42 UTC
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
A malignant old mole perhaps?
eusebius
2013-07-17 09:09:19 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
A malignant old mole perhaps?
But don't forget, his legal team may be the ones responsible for the leaks. Apparently they have form on this. But the timing is exquisite.
M***@unimail.com.au
2013-07-17 11:07:17 UTC
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
eusebius
2013-07-17 14:19:39 UTC
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
They seem to have been given wide publicity- I'm not rushing to conclusions, except to say I have no respect for Arthur whatsoever. Ditto Clarke (as a human being, that is, as a player I respect his batting record)
Mike Holmans
2013-07-17 14:43:22 UTC
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
They seem to have been given wide publicity- I'm not rushing to conclusions, except to say I have no respect for Arthur whatsoever. Ditto Clarke (as a human being, that is, as a player I respect his batting record)
You can't expect to sack a high-profile coach with no notice and not
get some blowback. Claims for unfair dismissal usually have to be
lodged within some specified time after the sacking. Arthur's lawyers
are bound to file the most extreme claim they think they can get away
with (or they wouldn't be doing their job), and it is a matter of
court procedure that the details of a claim are accessible to anyone
(on payment of the requisite administrative fees - which are of course
wildly inflated, but that's another story altogether).

It's a pretty good statement of claim, as far as I can see. It's
wide-ranging and mentions lots of high-profile people and lots of
sensitive issues. CA now have to weigh up whether they want several
days of court proceedings involving Arthur's counsel interrogating
Clarke, Watson, Sutherland, Howard, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all being
reported gleefully by the assembled media or whether they would prefer
to reach an "amicable" settlement.

Looks to me as though Arthur's lawyers are doing a damn good job. And
that that's all that you can reasonably conclude.

Cheers,

Mike
--
eusebius
2013-07-17 16:55:45 UTC
Post by Mike Holmans
On Wed, 17 Jul 2013 07:19:39 -0700 (PDT), eusebius
Post by eusebius
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
They seem to have been given wide publicity- I'm not rushing to conclusions, except to say I have no respect for Arthur whatsoever. Ditto Clarke (as a human being, that is, as a player I respect his batting record)
You can't expect to sack a high-profile coach with no notice and not
get some blowback. Claims for unfair dismissal usually have to be
lodged within some specified time after the sacking. Arthur's lawyers
are bound to file the most extreme claim they think they can get away
with (or they wouldn't be doing their job), and it is a matter of
court procedure that the details of a claim are accessible to anyone
(on payment of the requisite administrative fees - which are of course
wildly inflated, but that's another story altogether).
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it). The Ashby/Slipper case is a recent case in point. Apparently the legal firm is the same. If you google this, you will see they have form.
Post by Mike Holmans
It's a pretty good statement of claim, as far as I can see. It's
wide-ranging and mentions lots of high-profile people and lots of
sensitive issues. CA now have to weigh up whether they want several
days of court proceedings involving Arthur's counsel interrogating
Clarke, Watson, Sutherland, Howard, Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all being
reported gleefully by the assembled media or whether they would prefer
to reach an "amicable" settlement.
Looks to me as though Arthur's lawyers are doing a damn good job. And
that that's all that you can reasonably conclude.
Cheers,
Mike
They are thorough (and probably thorough bastards as well). As for their ethics, well as I said they have proven to be borderline in the past. But they may be doing a damn fine job for him. But publicity of this kind could only be of value if it spooks CA and they pay out. Australian judges tend to be quite snooty towards US style 'trial be media'.
jzfredricks
2013-07-17 18:29:16 UTC
Post by eusebius
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it). The Ashby/Slipper case is a recent case in point. Apparently the legal firm is the same. If you google this, you will see they have form.
Oh goodness, he's using THEM? What an asshole. They should be dis-barred (or whatever the Aus term is). That, or boiled alive, which ever is easier to arrange.
alvey
2013-07-17 20:14:44 UTC
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged
with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
That's not correct. They're highly confidential. Arthur's team of leeches,
Harmers, are widely suspected of being the source as they have recent form
for this. SMH quote; "Harmers has become known for its maximum-impact
tactics in cases like Kristy Fraser-Kirk's sexual harassment suit against
former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes, and a similar claim made
by former speaker Peter Slipper staffer James Ashby.
In the latter case, Mr Ashby's solicitor, Michael Harmer, was found by
Justice Steven Rares to have made "scandalous irrelevant" allegations,
while ruling that the case was an abuse of the judicial process. Mr Harmer
is currently appealing that finding."

Who knows what the facts are? There's one thing that's certain though,
cricket's not the winner.
Bob Dubery
2013-07-17 20:36:53 UTC
Post by eusebius
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it).
You sue for an inflated amount. If the court awards the actual amount then whoopee and everybody gets a bonus (and Arthur covers his costs). If the court awards you a percentage of your claim then you're still doing OK.

Ethics is an interesting matter, and depends on perspective. If these guys were representing me then, as Mike has said, I'd consider that they were fulfilling their duty to me 100% and doing the job with great diligence.
Mike Holmans
2013-07-17 20:44:36 UTC
Post by alvey
Who knows what the facts are? There's one thing that's certain though,
cricket's not the winner.
As is always the case when people resort to the law, the lawyers will
be.

Cheers,

Mike
--
Bharat Rao
2013-07-18 02:15:53 UTC
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,

Bharat
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:48:45 UTC
Post by jzfredricks
Post by eusebius
Yes, I have no disagreement with any of this. However, the legal team involved have a history of creating maximum publicity for their clients by using the most salacious parts of claims (possibly using fictitious statements as part of this). Also, they tend to sue for quite outrageous sums (not sure how much Arthur's salary was, but I bet that $4M is a lot more than it). The Ashby/Slipper case is a recent case in point. Apparently the legal firm is the same. If you google this, you will see they have form.
Oh goodness, he's using THEM? What an asshole. They should be dis-barred (or whatever the Aus term is). That, or boiled alive, which ever is easier to arrange.
Well, the Rares judgement was pretty damning, but nobody seems to have been punished in any substantive kind of way. Despite the internet activism (and Margo Kingston).
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:51:56 UTC
Post by alvey
Post by M***@unimail.com.au
I wouldn't call them leaks, really. They appear to be in documents lodged
with the court...available to anyone for a processing fee.
That's not correct. They're highly confidential. Arthur's team of leeches,
Harmers, are widely suspected of being the source as they have recent form
for this. SMH quote; "Harmers
That's them. Rather an ironic name. Poor Wendy.
Post by alvey
has become known for its maximum-impact
tactics in cases like Kristy Fraser-Kirk's sexual harassment suit against
former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes,
Oh the one for $37 M? Always wondered how they came up with that figure.
Post by alvey
and a similar claim made
by former speaker Peter Slipper staffer James Ashby.
In the latter case, Mr Ashby's solicitor, Michael Harmer, was found by
Justice Steven Rares to have made "scandalous irrelevant" allegations,
while ruling that the case was an abuse of the judicial process. Mr Harmer
is currently appealing that finding."
A rather damning decision.
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:57:28 UTC
Post by Bob Dubery
You sue for an inflated amount. If the court awards the actual amount then whoopee and everybody gets a bonus (and Arthur covers his costs). If the court awards you a percentage of your claim then you're still doing OK.
This is what is often planned, yes. But this isn't America. These are called 'ambit' claims here, with the full understanding that the amount sought is really just fantasy. It insults the intelligence of all involved.
Post by Bob Dubery
Ethics is an interesting matter, and depends on perspective. If these guys were representing me then, as Mike has said, I'd consider that they were fulfilling their duty to me 100% and doing the job with great diligence.
Not with the leaks. These will never help the legal case IMO. This was part of what Rares was talking about as to Harmer's abuse of process. I guess the strategy is to humiliate CA into coughing up, and quickly.
eusebius
2013-07-18 02:58:42 UTC
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
h***@gmail.com
2013-07-18 03:09:51 UTC
Post by Bharat Rao
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if he leaked them?
Or what if his lawyers leaked them?
Bob Dubery
2013-07-18 06:41:37 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bharat Rao
Post by Dechucka
Good riddance Mickey Arthur, you are now going on like a prat
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
WHat if they haven't?

It seems to me that there's a presumption that it must be Arthur or his lawyers who leaked the documents. What if somebody at CA leaked them? Or what if somebody went over to the court house, paid the fee for the copies, took them back to the editorial room and went through them to see what would make for juicy copy?
Bob Dubery
2013-07-18 06:44:14 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
You sue for an inflated amount. If the court awards the actual amount then whoopee and everybody gets a bonus (and Arthur covers his costs). If the court awards you a percentage of your claim then you're still doing OK.
This is what is often planned, yes. But this isn't America.
Can't have that, can we?
Post by eusebius
These are called 'ambit' claims here, with the full understanding that the amount sought is really just fantasy. It insults the intelligence of all involved.
Well you might feel insulted. That's not the same thing. Presumably the lawyers involved have reasons other than pissing off RASF1 for citing these amounts.
Post by eusebius
Post by Bob Dubery
Ethics is an interesting matter, and depends on perspective. If these guys were representing me then, as Mike has said, I'd consider that they were fulfilling their duty to me 100% and doing the job with great diligence.
Not with the leaks. These will never help the legal case IMO. This was part of what Rares was talking about as to Harmer's abuse of process. I guess the strategy is to humiliate CA into coughing up, and quickly.
As I said elsewhere in this thread, there's a presumption that it has to be somebody on Arthur's side who was responsible for the leaks. It ain't necessarily so. All we know is there's a leak. Until somebody puts there hand up and says "it was me" we won't know who leaked them.
Bharat Rao
2013-07-18 12:34:50 UTC
Post by eusebius
Post by Bharat Rao
How can it be Arthur's fault if confidential documents he filed have been leaked by other parties? He certainly is allowed legal redress and as far as I can tall filed documents that were supposed to be private,
What if his own legal team have 'tactically' released that information in order to gain maximum publicity for the case and maximum collateral damage for CA? From whom will he seek legal redress then?
My comment about "legal redress" is that Arthur is certainly allowed to file against CA for "legal redress for unfair termination." Regardless of whether or not you believe he was fairly dismissed, you surely cannot take away his right to seek legal redress.

Given that he is allowed to file, he certainly is allowed to include any and all information that would help his case in his filing. Once you allow that, then you can't call him a pratt for the contents of his confidential documents...

And the notion that his team may have leaked the documents is recent -- wasn't part of your summarization of Arthur as a "prat."

Bharat

Next Page >
Page 1 of 3