Say sorry

No costs when offer of compromise has grammatical errors ... Apologise to Wal, insists Antagonistic ... Clients get money back from national law shop 

HAVING dispensed with an action for damages for wrongful imprisonment brought by Mr Carey against the Grafton coppers, Dizzo judge Garry Neilson then turned to the question of  costs: 

Bateman: I seek costs pursuant to an offer of compromise served upon the plaintiff's solicitor by letter dated 29 November 2012.

Exhibit #5 Letter from Messrs Sparke Helmore dated November 29, 2012 with offer of compromise tendered, admitted without objection. 

HH: Yes. Mr Bateman, why should I give you the benefit of an offer of compromise which has got an awful grammatical error in it? 'Each party to pay their own costs.'

Bateman: Well, that --- 

HH: Each party is singular; it cannot be qualified with a plural pronoun 'their'. It should have been each party to pay his or its own costs.

Bateman: Your Honour, nowadays that is an acceptable grammatical error I find in ---

HH: Not in my court it isn't.

Bateman: In newspapers, radio, television ---

HH: Ignorance is pervasive. Linguistic ignorance is even more pervasive. 

Bateman: Yes, and there is linguistic ---

HH: I mean, now you get grammatical errors in Acts of Parliament. It is just mind-boggling.

Bateman: Yes, you do, but your Honour there is nothing in the rules that invalidates a document for grammatical error.

HH: I know. Unfortunately. Otherwise I could get rid of every statement of claim and every defence because they have all got grammatical errors in them. Yes. 

From Carey v State of New South Wales

*   *   *

Say sorry to Wal

The fearsome law shop Atanaskovic Hartnell is on the warpath. 

Acting on behalf of Wal King, the former CEO of Leighton Holdings, John Antagonistic has been demanding Fairfax Media issue an apology to Uncle Wal for stories about the great construction behemoth's nefarious conduct. 

Ace reporters Richard Baker & Nick McKenzie dug-up a whole pile of information alleging "bribery, corruption and cover-ups were rife and known to top company executives and directors". 

The files exposed plans to pay kickbacks in Iraq, Indonesia and Malaysia.  

Private consultants also advised Leighton that the allegations "indicate a serious breakdown of probity, governance and ethics within Leighton's Asian operations". 

The newspaper investigation was the result of a six months work by Baker & McKenzie. 

King was invited by Fairfax to comment before publication, but declined to do so. 

However, after the story exploded across the publisher's dead tree and digital platforms, Antagonistic went into letter-writing melt-down - slabs of which have conveniently found their way into The National Rupert. 

Atters demanded apologies from Fairfax and businessman Trevor Rowe, who added some extra Tabasco to the story by claiming Wal King "was totally out of control". 

Antagonistic also attacked Fairfax for delays in responding to Wal's complaints until general counsel Gail Hambly returned from leave. 

There was also a missive in which he floated the idea that federal or state police investigate how the reporters got their paws on the secret, explosive documents. 

All of which have been conveniently leaked to the rambling twisters at The Australian. 

There have also been reports that defamation proceedings are in the pipeline. 

In The Vic Supremes last week, Stormin' Norman O'Bryan, acting for shareholders suing Leighton in a class action, told the court that the company has not denied the serious allegations of misconduct. 

The company's statement to the Stock Exchange "is more instructive for what it does not say than what it does". 

"What it does not say is that anything identified in the Fairfax media articles is false." 

Meanwhile, the demands for grovels and apologies pour out of Antagonistic's antique laden law shop. 

Say sorry to Meredith

It brings to mind the wily Serb's frothy demand in December 2010, just after the NSW Court of Appeal mistakenly cleared his client Meredith Hellicar of wrongdoing and cover-ups in the James Hardie fiasco. He bellowed: 

"ASIC ... and perhaps ... the former Federal Treasurer Peter Costello ... owe apologies to these former directors ... they owe apologies to taxpayers as well." 

All went quiet after the High Court kicked the Court of Appeal's findings into the dust bin, where they belonged. 

*   *   *

It's hush-hush, but we hear a Brisbane-based partner of a national law shop has departed his perch - suddenly.

The firm has been writing cheques to clients because some of the bills authorised by the lawyer in question contained embarrassing errors. 

We're looking into it further, but any knowledge from an agent in the field might help.