Interlocutory declarations are determined in a defamation suit by three medical professional plaintiffs:
(a) Mr Cameron Slater’s application to exclude evidence is declined;
(b) a version of the plaintiffs’ application for particular discovery by Mr Slater and Mr Graham is granted;
(c) the plaintiffs’ application for particular discovery by Mrs Katherine Rich and the New Zealand Food and Grocery Council is granted only to a limited extent;
(d) Mrs Rich’s and the NZFGC’s application for particular discovery by the plaintiffs is declined;
(e) the plaintiffs’ application to examine Mr Slater and Mr Graham orally is granted because they have made insufficient answer to interrogatories.
Could someone with a better understanding of NZ law please explain to us plebs what this actually means?
Its a hunting/fishing exercise it they don’t have enough evidence that Slater is a nutcase.
Waste of time and money really!!
We already know he has been demonstrating clearly that he is a nutcase already.
Was interested myself, this explains things a little more clearly,
https://yournz.org/2017/10/05/sellman-swinburn-bradbrook-v-slater-graham-rich/
By my limited understanding this does not bode well for rich slater and co.
but as we all know,in nuzild the wheels of law grind exceedingly slow and expensive.
Go Doug Sellman!
Comments are closed.