Little pleased no damages awarded so far in defamation case

Labour leader Andrew Little says he is pleased there were no damages awarded against him so far in his defamation case.

Last night, Justice Karen Clark ruled against hotelier Lani Hagaman's claim of defamation by Labour leader Andrew Little but held the decision on allegations of defamation against Earl Hagaman for further argument.

A 12-person jury found Mr Little defamed Mr Hagaman on one occasion and not on others but hung on whether he was protected by privilege.

As it could not agree, the jury did not consider whether damages should be paid but there could be a new trial for the undecided counts.

The Hagamans were seeking a maximum of $2.3 million in damages.

Mr Little says it’s “always stressful when you're up for a court hearing that could lead to a judgment of $2.3 million against you.”

“The thing about litigation is, and I've known this, that there is huge uncertainty. Uncertainty carries its own stresses.”

Mr Little had previously stated he would have paid all the costs that came from the trial himself.

He says he does not have assets worth $2.3 million and does not have a line of credit worth that much either.

The bottom line
“Had that award been made, I'd have to work very hard to get that. But I have to confess I was somewhat confident that such an award would not be made.”

He joked that he would have probably been busking on the bottom of Lambton Quay if he had to pay the full amount.

Outside court last night, Ms Hagaman told media that in law, one is innocent until proven guilty but in defamation, "one is guilty until they can prove their innocence.”

“Even though [Mr] Little has recently apologised and offered compensation, all of which in my view took far too long to be offered.

“Coming to court was the only recourse of action we had available to us and we have been forced to spend the past 12 months preparing for this hearing.”

She says she came to the trial with the full intention of restoring her husband’s reputation, their family name and Scenic Hotel Group’s good standing in the hospitality and tourism sector – “we have done that.”

She said it was possible the jury found it difficult to deal with the technicalities of defamation law.

“We can take at least this from the jury’s verdict – there was a finding of an item that was defamatory of Earl.”