ACCforum: Judges using Google - ACCforum

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Judges using Google

#1 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 04 June 2013 - 04:59 PM

An interesting case involving Judge Roderick Joyce's refered to in Court desicion of : O'Regan P, Hammond and Arnold JJ.

Haden v Wells


http://www.nzlii.org...lls%20v%20haden
1

#2 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:15 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 04 June 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

An interesting case involving Judge Roderick Joyce's refered to in Court desicion of : O'Regan P, Hammond and Arnold JJ.

Haden v Wells


http://www.nzlii.org...lls%20v%20haden


[32] Turning to Mr Orlov’s second point, when addressing the question of
damages, Judge Joyce noted that Mrs Haden had persisted in her endeavours to paint
Mr Wells as a fraudster throughout the hearing. He noted that a Google search
revealed that the links remained to material sourced from Mrs Haden and Verisure
24 At [199].
25 At [230].

which was defamatory of Mr Wells. Citing Praed v Graham26 the Judge said that he
was entitled to look at Mrs Haden’s conduct down to the time of judgment,27 and did
so in fixing damages.

[33] Mr Orlov submitted that the Judge was wrong in this respect. While we
agree that it was unwise for the Judge to have conducted his own researches on the
internet, at least without informing counsel, he was entitled to consider Mrs Haden’s
conduct up until the time of judgment.28
It is clear from his judgment that
Mrs Haden vigorously pursued her campaign against Mr Wells through the vehicle
of the court proceedings, and the Judge was entitled to take account of that. Quite
apart from the internet searches, there was ample material to justify the Judge’s
view.

1

#3 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:17 PM

To the two trolls whom have given us Red negatives within 10 minutes of our posting this topic, it has been noted.

Cease & Desist your trolling & obsessive unusual fascinations to hukildaspida please.

-4

#4 User is offline   hukildaspida 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Member
  • Posts: 3353
  • Joined: 24-August 07

Posted 04 June 2013 - 05:19 PM

Other cases relating directly to Haden v Wells to view the matter in chronological order, content and context.

http://www.nzlii.org...2Fnz&mask_path=

1.

Haden v Wells [2010] NZCA 591 (6 December 2010) [100%]
(From Court of Appeal of New Zealand; 23 KB) View LawCite record
2.

Haden v Wells [2012] NZHC 546 (22 March 2012) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 22 March 2012; 15 KB) View LawCite record
3.

Haden v Wells [2012] NZHC 32 (1 February 2012) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 1 February 2012; 10 KB) View LawCite record
4.

Haden v Wells [2012] NZHC 31 (1 February 2012) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 1 February 2012; 11 KB) View LawCite record
5.

Haden v Wells HC Auckland CIV 2008-404-5500 [2010] NZHC 982 (23 June 2010) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 23 June 2010; 15 KB) View LawCite record
6.

[PDF] Haden and another v Wells HC AK CIV 2008-404-5500 [2009] NZHC 2137 (20 November 2009) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 1 KB) View LawCite record
7.

Haden and another v Wells HC AK CIV 2008-404-5500 [2009] NZHC 2137 (20 November 2009) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 38 KB) View LawCite record
8.

Haden and another v Wells HC AK CIV 2008-404-5500 [2009] NZHC 2137 (20 November 2009) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 3 KB) View LawCite record
9.

HADEN & ANOR V WELLS HC AK CIV-2008-404-5500 [2009] NZHC 122 (13 February 2009) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 13 February 2009; 19 KB) View LawCite record
10.

HADEN AND ANOR V WELLS HC AK CIV 2008-404-005500 [2009] NZHC 6 (19 January 2009) [100%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 19 January 2009; 11 KB) View LawCite record
11.

G HADEN AND ANOR V N E WELLS HC AK CIV 2008-404-005500 [2008] NZHC 1919 (4 December 2008) [66%]
(From High Court of New Zealand Decisions; 4 December 2008; 14 KB) View LawCite record

NZLII: Feedback | Privacy Policy | Disclaimers
URL: http://www.nzlii.org/form/search/
1

#5 User is offline   MINI 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 7810
  • Joined: 09-October 07

Posted 04 June 2013 - 07:27 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 04 June 2013 - 05:15 PM, said:

[32] Turning to Mr Orlov’s second point, when addressing the question of
damages, Judge Joyce noted that Mrs Haden had persisted in her endeavours to paint
Mr Wells as a fraudster throughout the hearing. He noted that a Google search
revealed that the links remained to material sourced from Mrs Haden and Verisure
24 At [199].
25 At [230].

which was defamatory of Mr Wells. Citing Praed v Graham26 the Judge said that he
was entitled to look at Mrs Haden’s conduct down to the time of judgment,27 and did
so in fixing damages.

[33] Mr Orlov submitted that the Judge was wrong in this respect. While we
agree that it was unwise for the Judge to have conducted his own researches on the
internet, at least without informing counsel, he was entitled to consider Mrs Haden’s
conduct up until the time of judgment.28
It is clear from his judgment that
Mrs Haden vigorously pursued her campaign against Mr Wells through the vehicle
of the court proceedings, and the Judge was entitled to take account of that. Quite
apart from the internet searches, there was ample material to justify the Judge’s
view.



Well maybe the Justice Minister can show the Judges how the internet is not at all reliable.

By the way a 'greenie' to limit the reddies!!!
0

#6 User is offline   keentohelp 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1232
  • Joined: 26-February 04

Posted 04 June 2013 - 09:36 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 04 June 2013 - 04:59 PM, said:

An interesting case involving Judge Roderick Joyce's refered to in Court desicion of : O'Regan P, Hammond and Arnold JJ.

Haden v Wells


http://www.nzlii.org...lls%20v%20haden



I am very pleased to see that a Judge has included a persons Google results when considering character and intent.

The internet is a very public place.

The Judge was in no two minds and nor were his seniors in the case you refer to.

This Haden person will be hanging her head in shame no doubt - or doubtless she ought to be.
-1

#7 User is offline   whetu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 06-May 13

Posted 04 June 2013 - 09:41 PM

View PostMINI, on 04 June 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Well maybe the Justice Minister can show the Judges how the internet is not at all reliable.

By the way a 'greenie' to limit the reddies!!!


Trying to find or buy new friends Mini? Spida cannot be bought by green reputation points, she like you likes the $, to be precise $20K, don't get too close Mini, this one bites and takes no prisoners. You have already fallen out with Blurb in another topic and now you want to cosy up to the black widow of this forum, surely a 67 year old lady pensioner (Blurbs words) knows better!
4

#8 User is offline   whetu 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 221
  • Joined: 06-May 13

Posted 04 June 2013 - 09:45 PM

View Posthukildaspida, on 04 June 2013 - 05:17 PM, said:

To the two trolls whom have given us Red negatives within 10 minutes of our posting this topic, it has been noted.

Cease & Desist your trolling & obsessive unusual fascinations to hukildaspida please.



We note that at the time of this posting that some kind soul had given you one red (negative) reputation point, and well deserved we say. :lol:
5

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users