Talk:Stephen Estcourt

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

RevPLaw (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection.

Pro Bono[edit]

dare I say it... citation needed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bleeter (talk • contribs) 09:30, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Payout.[edit]

``He sued the Mercury and its reporter Sue Neales for defamation and the settlement in Estcourt's favour involved what was at the time the largest judgement for damages for defamation in Tasmanian legal history,[19] as well as fulsome official and personal apologies from the Editor[citation needed].

Surely if the case was settled out of court before a hearing, the case could not have been the largest judgment for defamation, since no judgment was handed down?

165.69.2.1 (talk) 02:03, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My humble apologies, I wasn't particularly aware that it was settled out of court. You could fill us in on the details, except maybe for the whole conflict of interest from an anonymous News Ltd staff member foo thing Bleeter (talk) 04:16, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up. A PDF copy of the 'Final Judgement' (number 611 of 2008) entered in to the Supreme Court Of Tasmania records dated 15 Jan 2009 fell off the back of a truck in to my lap (because I'm too lazy to walk down to the court and ask if such a thing exists). It's got 'Supreme Court Of Tasmania' across the top and bottom and 'Final Judgment' in allcaps bold and a squiggle claiming to be the sign of the Supreme Court Registrar. Maybe the agreement was reached mutually between the plaintiff and the three defendants, or maybe it was ordered by a judge. I have no idea. See previous re: lazy. But the paperwork does say 'Final Judgement'. Obviously, I can't cite this in the main article ('original research'). If the Supreme Court ever gets out of the 1980s to 1990 and puts searchable judgements online, we can probably return to this point. Alternatively, if The Mercury decide to be transparent they could also publish any or all similar cases that have crossed their paths over the years. Bleeter (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]