Hird suing insurance for not paying his legal fees

[Just interested]

I don't think we've heard the last of this.

Certainly caught the eye out of the list, Donnie.

Perhaps the Senators might like to pose a question of McD, as to what he might know about such an assertion made to the court.

Then, by way of follow up, why not ask him if anyone associated with the government provided any input prior to him waving "play on" to the use of AOD?

 

[ChrisKaias]

I don't think we've heard the last of this.

I think all of the media outlets ignored it in their reports (might be wrong). I agree it was one of the more interesting things said but media seems to have ignored it.

 

[Laphroaig]

Hirdys motivation to appeal:

“One of the reasons was my reputation ... another was I wouldn’t have a team to coach if the 34 players weren’t allowed to play,” he said.

I thought it was for the players?

Context Jen. Sweetie

Try this context on for size.

Everything in Hird's application to the Court which relates to the interests of the players was covered in full by the concurrent application by the Club, heard in the same Court at the same time. As a result, those parts of Hird's case related to the players are meaningless duplication. So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with the protect James Hird from having to suffer the consequences of his actions part he slipped in at the end. You could say with some accuracy that Hird was, in fact, hiding behind the players in the scramble to protect himself.

You're right. Context can be quite illuminating.

 

[Just interested]

I think all of the media outlets ignored it in their reports (might be wrong). I agree it was one of the more interesting things said but media seems to have ignored it.

Pretty much par then.

 

[Just interested]

Try this context on for size.

Everything in Hird's application to the Court which relates to the interests of the players was covered in full by the concurrent application by the Club, heard in the same Court at the same time. As a result, those parts of Hird's case related to the players are meaningless duplication. So what does that leave us with? It leaves us with the protect James Hird from having to suffer the consequences of his actions part he slipped in at the end. You could say with some accuracy that Hird was, in fact, hiding behind the players in the scramble to protect himself.

You're right. Context can be quite illuminating.

+ "'I had a good case': Hird tells court hearing"

 

[Chief]

Young Hirdy got ahead of himself and threw best practice out the door for quick outcomes. Stupid!

My opinion at the time was that it was his option. Roll the dice, you're already on your way out.

Win and you become an eternal club hero. The saviour who went the extra mile for The Boys, or at worst who cleaned up his own mess.

Lose and nothing changes, though your ardent supporters will love you even more and everyone will have a new bone to gnaw on, arguing the points of the case will crowd out a bit of the hatred for James.

He had nothing to lose and everything to gain by rolling the dice.

 

[Laphroaig]

Your inference is that James Hird is stupid,

1. Make a list of all the bad s**t that's happened to Essendon since Hird came in as coach - and is still happening to this day.
2. Ask yourself if you believe that any of it could have happened if Knights had stayed on as coach.
3. Given the reasonable assumption that Hird did not set out to deliberately damage Essendon, do we conclude intelligence or stupidity was in play?

Hird's just another dumb footballer with delusions of grandeur. Evans hooked him up with the big end of town as a kind of cute pet, to be thrown a few scraps from the top table. Some nice little contracts from the AFL, made possible because Demitriou owed Evans some favors. (And in a delicious irony poached from Hird by Demitriou after he left the AFL).

 

[DonsRule]

You have a go at me for not putting something in to context, and you've been shown several times that perhaps you weren't reading it right, and this is your response?

Each side is just being as selective as one another Jen.


Like I said, the HTB is just a think Tank where thing said here become fact, with no proof other than they were said on the HTB


You know, perhaps rather than sitting behind a computer all day reading the HTB, talk to people involved it adds context including in relation to things Hird or the media have talked about in relation to him, things that have been said privately, to players and parents etc.


But oh not I wouldn't want to stop the HTB. Heavens no. Such a community of level headed thinking.

 

[JD-Roo]

Programme is the Queen's English for a plan of activities to be done to achieve some outcome. Crass Americans use program for the same meaning.

Anyone else actually hear this in Sir Maurice Micklewhite's voice?

 

[Satan]

Anyone else actually hear this in Sir Maurice Micklewhite's voice?

Sir Hugh Percy

 

[JD-Roo]

While that's a fair point, Neil Young QC and Peter Hanks QC are very well respected and experienced. You're not going to keep your reputation for long if you keep giving bad advice, and I'm almost certain that the insurance didn't factor into their thoughts at all.

So add Young and Hanks to the list of bodies rumbling under the bus' wheels.

Given the profile of this case, he doesn't seem to mind trashing the reputation of everyone around him in a desperate attempt to save his own.

 

[JD-Roo]

I think all of the media outlets ignored it in their reports (might be wrong). I agree it was one of the more interesting things said but media seems to have ignored it.

I would put this down to Hird merely being 100% wrong yet again, or his advice was.

No way ASADA or WADA were going to let this one go. The worldwide sporting implications were too big. It's laughable to think it would die a quick death merely because of "Australian sporting politics".

 

[Sir Hugh Percy]

Anyone else actually hear this in Sir Maurice Micklewhite's voice?

You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!

 

[JD-Roo]

You were only supposed to blow the bloody doors off!

My favourite movie!!

 

[ChrisKaias]

I would put this down to Hird merely being 100% wrong yet again, or his advice was.

No way ASADA or WADA were going to let this one go. The worldwide sporting implications were too big. It's laughable to think it would die a quick death merely because of "Australian sporting politics".

His answer said that he personally was in contact with sources in the Federal Government who was telling him this. That's more the story I think, rather than it being a correct prediction. Who was he talking to in the government that was saying this? What was the push in the government to squash this?

 

[BruceFromBalnarring]

Would you like me to go back and repeat the numerous times you have been FACTUALLY incorrect?

I assure you it's one of a few tasks on BigFooty I would thoroughly enjoy.

Hang about..... Are you suggesting Hird isn't stupid?

Really?????

 

[ChrisKaias]

So add Young and Hanks to the list of bodies rumbling under the bus' wheels.

Given the profile of this case, he doesn't seem to mind trashing the reputation of everyone around him in a desperate attempt to save his own.

When you write a legal advice it usually would never be aired in public because it's protected by legal privilege. But the legal privilege belongs to the client and not the lawyer, and the client can waive it and make the advice public as Hird has done here. They're all experienced lawyers and everyone gets it wrong on occasion. It's just relatively embarrassing for them that their advice was so strong and in the end, incorrect.

 

[The 747]

His answer said that he personally was in contact with sources in the Federal Government who was telling him this. That's more the story I think, rather than it being a correct prediction. Who was he talking to in the government that was saying this? What was the push in the government to squash this?

IMO it's just bullshit. Or someone said something that Hird took to mean what he wanted it to mean. A club run program that was fingered by the ACC in the way they were was not going to be swept under the rug.

 

[JD-Roo]

When you write a legal advice it usually would never be aired in public because it's protected by legal privilege. But the legal privilege belongs to the client and not the lawyer, and the client can waive it and make the advice public as Hird has done here. They're all experienced lawyers and everyone gets it wrong on occasion. It's just relatively embarrassing for them that their advice was so strong and in the end, incorrect.

Ok. Fair enough. Thanks. I thought it might carry more weight than that, given my VAST legal expertise as a mapmaker! Haha..

 

[Mr Eagle]

Programme is the Queen's English for a plan of activities to be done to achieve some outcome. Crass Americans use program for the same meaning.

Coalition governments use programme. Labor governments use program. Fun fact.

 

[Viney]

I'm agreeing that's what he should have done. Just saying the fact he didn't doesn't mean he's any less entitled to be paid out if the policy says he should be paid out.

This is not ENTIRELY correct

Here's an example of a fairly standard Professional Lines Insuring Clause:

WE also agree to pay DEFENCE COSTS either incurred by US or incurred by the INSURED with OUR prior written consent

Note, with OUR prior written consent

Chubb could argue they were prejudiced by not being informed prior to costs being incurred which could result in denial of liability or partial settlement

Largely irrelevant though - D&O is strictly a Third Party Policy

I deal with Chubb - they are the best claims settlers in the industry bar none

If they're fighting this, they have solid grounds to

 

[JD-Roo]

Coalition governments use programme. Labor governments use program. Fun fact.

That would be the Labor governments that decided upon their formation that they would also use the American spelling in their very name.

Not that THAT should colour opinion about them, after all it's a grey area......

 

[ChrisKaias]

This is not ENTIRELY correct

Here's an example of a fairly standard Professional Lines Insuring Clause:

WE also agree to pay DEFENCE COSTS either incurred by US or incurred by the INSURED with OUR prior written consent

Note, with OUR prior written consent

Chubb could argue they were prejudiced by not being informed prior to costs being incurred which could result in denial of liability or partial settlement

Largely irrelevant though - D&O is strictly a Third Party Policy

I deal with Chubb - they are the best claims settlers in the industry bar none

If they're fighting this, they have solid grounds to

To me what I said is still correct, if the policy requires you to seek consent and you don't, then you don't have the right to be paid out under the policy. I'm not sure if this policy did say that or not but nothing was said to indicate that in what I listened to in court in the submissions, though I didn't hear everything or any of today's submissions.

 

[JD-Roo]

His answer said that he personally was in contact with sources in the Federal Government who was telling him this. That's more the story I think, rather than it being a correct prediction. Who was he talking to in the government that was saying this? What was the push in the government to squash this?

The cynical side of me puts this down to politicians being fan-boys (just as much as the general public) as quite possibly telling him exactly what he wanted to hear.

The non-cynical side is VERY interested if the Govt thinks they could've squashed it.

 

[Laphroaig]

That would be the Labor governments that decided upon their formation that they would also use the American spelling in their very name.

Not that THAT should colour opinion about them, after all it's a grey area......

Continuing off topic I can strongly recommend one of Bill Bryson's early books, Mother Tongue. Traces the history and evolution of the English language. He's such an entertaining writer that what could be a dull, dry subject is a really entertaining read.

Anyhoo. One of the interesting bits is just how many words and spellings that the poms condemn as crass americanisms originally traveled to America FROM England and remained in use in the USA after they fell out of use or out of fashion in England.