News Collingwood News & Media

Remove this Banner Ad

so Cleaver settled. What a laugh.

It was us (Browne) who said that they wouldn’t settle and intended to see it all the way through to judgement.
 
It was us (Browne) who said that they wouldn’t settle and intended to see it all the way through to judgement.
Maybe it was settled for zero $ and no counter suit from us for damaged reputation for fause claims?
We don't know the details.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I mean, what was he going to say? "We're going to settle no matter how much it costs!"

He could have said what most people say in these situations …

…. nothing.
 
Wrong. Browne's public stance was the standard response from a defendant with deep pockets.

I’ll happily defer to your greater experience on this stuff …

… but in my own experience the dumb ones mouth off and the smart ones keep their mouth shut.
 
I’ll happily defer to your greater experience on this stuff …

… but in my own experience the dumb ones mouth off and the smart ones keep their mouth shut.
It is not mouthing off to say a matter will be vigorously defended. I'd say a dumb one is someone making that kind of an assessment of what is the most basic of litigation tactics.
 
It is not mouthing off to say a matter will be vigorously defended. I'd say a dumb one is someone making that kind of an assessment of what is the most basic of litigation tactics.

I get that Browne’s public statements would have been cleared through counsel first …

… but don’t you think it’s wiser for the client to just STFU and let counsel do their job?
 
Wrong. Browne's public stance was the standard response from a defendant with deep pockets.
Probably said to him "If you take this to court and lose, it will cost you a lot of money".
We won't know the details, but it could have been something like that.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Probably said to him "If you take this to court and lose, it will cost you a lot of money".
We won't know the details, but it could have been something like that.
If you take a matter to court, both parties lose. Given we'd be unlikely to either: get costs awarded (even if we won), or even if they were awarded, costs recovered, it's likely we offered an amount substantially less than what it would have cost us to progress the matter - always good to remember that we have a legal system, and not a justice system.
 
Probably said to him "If you take this to court and lose, it will cost you a lot of money".
We won't know the details, but it could have been something like that.

That kind of posturing from either side is BS.

Browne has been a lawyer for around 50 years so he will know what’s what. Plus CFC would have decent legal representation.

Cleaver may very well be a lamb (dunno) but he has legal representation who will know what’s what.

Given that (1) this ended up being a negotiated no-fault settlement and (2) I don’t remember there being any legal counter claims? (happy to be corrected) and (3) the timing of this is around the time of Browne’s last board meeting, it looks like there was more to this outcome than Cleaver simply walking away. Which I take to mean that Cleaver likely got something out of it. And Browne’s public “We’re not paying anything and we’re prepared to take this through to judgement” just made him look like a belligerent buffoon.

Discretion is the better part of valour and all that.
 
Last edited:

Remove this Banner Ad

News Collingwood News & Media

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top