A month ago I predicted a win for the Hon Judith Collins in her law-suit over the claim that she or her office had leaked ACC information.
Catching up on several week's papers I thought of how sick Messrs Mallard & Co must have felt on seeing Phil Kitchin's latest report on the ACC/Pullar affair. Their source might seem a less reliable witness for pleading justification in light of at least one misleading ACC internal report. Phil is such a good journalist I read his report as a fair indication of ACC scrum twisting. Where there is some there is usually more.
Trevor Mallard could be getting advice right now to settle this, even if it involves a complete and abject apology and withdrawal. I hope the Minister makes them pay all her costs, plus some, to cover the risk she took, plus some more against RNZ for its low-grade coverage of the Mallard allegations without balancing comment.
RSS feeds available for 
iPredict has her on only about 20% to get damages. Could she win the case and not be awarded damages, or do you think that there's some money to be made on that contract?
[Steve] Some famous defamation cases have ended with ‘victory’ to the plaintiff and nominal damages. Bit iPredict may be right. There is a long way to go yet, and the risks of litigation mean that I rarely recommend it to clients, even when they feel they have very strong cases.
On the other hand, I would be even more strong in advice to defendants in the position of the media and Little and Mallard – get out of it while you can, early. There is little worse than facing a plaintiff who is prepared to litigate on principle, irrespective of cost.