This one is from the mailbag.
Year 13 Student got it right, Mr Mills QC got it wrong. As a first year law student, she writes again.
I believe that Mr Craig should be gracious in defeat as I wrote a letter to you previously that I believed that he had maliciously attacked you, and numerous others, but with him arguing that he had been defamed.
I was not surprised at the outcome with one exception, why the ceiling in damages?
Mr Craig attempting to have another High Court Judge review the findings of the jury is to merely limit the amounts of damages in the Williams matter, given that he faces a counterclaim from you on his defamation proceedings against you.
If I was advising Mr Craig I would try and negotiate a deal of $800k with Mr Williams, and an out of court settlement on costs, not admitting to indemnity payments.
If I was advising you I would argue a dollar per pamphlet as a minimum, and if the jury found exemplary damages were established on a civil threshold of beyond the balance of probabilities, I would seek a graduated scale per 10 thousand pamphlets similar to the Richter Scale, but I would refer to it as the Craig-scale. I would seek, if pushed to trial, a minimum of $10m, and if settled prior to trial $4m, reflecting that the settlement was evidence of his regret, and that the amount would remain confidential. Read more »