Haskell may Sue

Hadn't seen this up at all but feel free to remove if Maesteg's already covered it

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8917315/England-forward-James-Haskell-threatens-to-sue-hotel-worker-Annabel-Newton-over-false-claims.html

Basically Haskell has threatened to sue that hotel work if she hadn't retracted her claims. There is video of the whole thing that shows the vast majority of the claims were completely fictitious. Which is why the RFU were able to say the allegations were completely false.

This wont go to court what players see as light hearted banter may be viewed differently by the courts.

It won't go to court to say they didn't do anything wrong but that she lied to the papers to make money.

Did they have a video camera in the hotel room ? I have not followed this story so I'm wondering where the video evidence would have come from .

Interesting that it resulted in an earlier negotiated and therefore higher wage Super Rugby contract being withdrawn. Any ideas where he might have been going before the Highlanders?

Who's sue?

Haskell was videoing everything for a sponsorship thing and at the time Hartley was using it (apparently, I haven't seen it but for the RFU to categorically say the allegations are false suggests the evidence it provides it must be pretty clear).

You would think any advisor would encourage Haskell to leave it alone. It is finished business he should clear his name by playing good rugby and handling himself with good candour.

But this article eludes to the fact that Haskell feels he lost out on a lucrative contract with Super 15 franchise because of this incidents associated bad press coverage of him. Haskell now has a less lucrative contract from a different Super 15 franchise.

The Telegraph Sport Pages wrote:Telegraph Sport can disclose Haskell’s legal representatives have sent a letter to Annabel Newton, a Dunedin hotel worker, demanding that she withdraw her allegations and confirm that the incident on Sept 9 was no more than “light-hearted banter between herself and the players”.

The deadline for the apology expired on Friday night and Haskell’s legal representatives have warned Newton that without it their client “will take the appropriate steps to clear his name and to recover his financial loss.”
Haskell’s lawyer also warns Newton that a video of the incident, filmed by Hartley, will be made public to demonstrate “the falsehood” of the allegations that she has made.
Haskell is thought to have already run up legal fees of over £80,000 as he bids to clear his name while the fallout from the controversy resulted in a lucrative offer from a Super 15 club being withdrawn.
He has now signed for New Zealand club Otago Highlanders but for a significantly lower salary than his original offer from a different club.

Haskell's case is all about trying to make money out of Annabel Newtons claims and their implications thereafter, due to the retraction of the offer of his previous contract. Clearing his name, or trying to establish the truth is nothing to do with this.

If Haskell wanted to clear his name he could just release the video of the incident that proves, he Hartley and Ashton are not guilty of anything other than inappropriate language. This is about recovering potentially lost earnings in court.

I do not know much about Kiwi law but I would be surprised if this went anywhere.

maestegmafia wrote:You would think any advisor would encourage Haskell to leave it alone. It is finished business he should clear his name by playing good rugby and handling himself with good candour.

But this article eludes to the fact that Haskell feels he lost out on a lucrative contract with Super 15 franchise because of this incidents associated bad press coverage of him. Haskell now has a less lucrative contract from a different Super 15 franchise.

Haskell's case is all about trying to make money out of Annabel Newtons claims and their implications thereafter, due to the retraction of the offer of his previous contract. Clearing his name, or trying to establish the truth is nothing to do with this.

If Haskell wanted to clear his name he could just release the video of the incident that proves, he Hartley and Ashton are not guilty of anything other than inappropriate language. This is about recovering potentially lost earnings in court.

I do not know much about Kiwi law but I would be surprised if this went anywhere.

Maybe he wants to clear his name through the law rather than the lottery of the media. Good on him. I think Hartley, Ashton and Haskell need to do some growing up, but they were panned by everyone far too quickly. If this woman is the liar she appears to be, i hope he sues her @rse off

maestegmafia wrote:You would think any advisor would encourage Haskell to leave it alone. It is finished business he should clear his name by playing good rugby and handling himself with good candour.

But this article eludes to the fact that Haskell feels he lost out on a lucrative contract with Super 15 franchise because of this incidents associated bad press coverage of him. Haskell now has a less lucrative contract from a different Super 15 franchise.

Haskell's case is all about trying to make money out of Annabel Newtons claims and their implications thereafter, due to the retraction of the offer of his previous contract. Clearing his name, or trying to establish the truth is nothing to do with this.

If Haskell wanted to clear his name he could just release the video of the incident that proves, he Hartley and Ashton are not guilty of anything other than inappropriate language. This is about recovering potentially lost earnings in court.

I do not know much about Kiwi law but I would be surprised if this went anywhere.

Don't agree with your speculation about his intentions at all. He's not even going to get his legal costs back from her, which have already exceeded what she got for her story, let alone any extra for damages to reputation for false allegations or loss of earnings as a result. Students who work as maids don't have big financial reserves. I think the contract aspect acts more as a vehicle to prove damage done to reputation and he is pursuing it on a principle basis. Don't know if I'd do the same thing, but if what he claims is true and his plan is to make sure she made no money out of the incident, her name is mud and a similar sort of thing doesn't happen again, even if it costs him money, then good luck to him.

maestegmafia wrote:You would think any advisor would encourage Haskell to leave it alone. It is finished business he should clear his name by playing good rugby and handling himself with good candour.

But this article eludes to the fact that Haskell feels he lost out on a lucrative contract with Super 15 franchise because of this incidents associated bad press coverage of him. Haskell now has a less lucrative contract from a different Super 15 franchise.

Haskell's case is all about trying to make money out of Annabel Newtons claims and their implications thereafter, due to the retraction of the offer of his previous contract. Clearing his name, or trying to establish the truth is nothing to do with this.

If Haskell wanted to clear his name he could just release the video of the incident that proves, he Hartley and Ashton are not guilty of anything other than inappropriate language. This is about recovering potentially lost earnings in court.

I do not know much about Kiwi law but I would be surprised if this went anywhere.

You've just libelled Haskell with your own claims here. Careful now.

He would be extremely stupid to do so. Nothing to gain and plenty to lose - loads of muck to be thrown if he does.

Arrogant and stupid to even think of it

TJ wrote:He would be extremely stupid to do so. Nothing to gain and plenty to lose - loads of muck to be thrown if he does.

Arrogant and stupid to even think of it

Yes I agree.

TJ wrote:He would be extremely stupid to do so. Nothing to gain and plenty to lose - loads of muck to be thrown if he does.

Arrogant and stupid to even think of it

Although, equally, perhaps arrogant and stupid to think you can lie, earn a quick buck and get away with it. Loads of muck HAS been thrown at him already, good on him wanting to scrape some of it off.

TJ wrote:He would be extremely stupid to do so. Nothing to gain and plenty to lose - loads of muck to be thrown if he does.

Arrogant and stupid to even think of it

How is wanting to clear your name arrogant and stupid?

He might consider suing his Mam and Dad as the gene pool seems a tad faulty.

TJ wrote:He would be extremely stupid to do so. Nothing to gain and plenty to lose - loads of muck to be thrown if he does.

Arrogant and stupid to even think of it

What's arrogant and stupid to prove that he has had his reputation damaged ?

The money grabbing bitch instructed a lawyer to try and extract money from the RFU......

Why - if he shuts up it will go away - if he sues it will not

He will get loads of mud thrown at him if he sues and even if he wins his reputation will be damaged.

the best thing to do is a strong public announcement to say he is innocent an take the moral high ground that suing is not worth his while - its beneath him and them let it die a death

So, if you were falsely accused of something and it affected your livelihood, you wouldn't take action to prove you that were innocent and that you were the victim of a malicious action ?

Suing for libel merely makes the accusation more widely known and even if he wins he will get Eff all.
a sensible man would walk away

England rugby fan wrote:So, if you were falsely accused of something and it affected your livelihood, you wouldn't take action to prove you that were innocent and that you were the victim of a malicious action ?

Yes I would if I was squeaky clean but this homemade video evidence will be ripped apart in court and the fact that there was talk of giving her money to keep her mouth shut would also not help matters.

Cymroglan wrote:

Yes I would if I was squeaky clean but this homemade video evidence will be ripped apart in court and the fact that there was talk of giving her money to keep her mouth shut would also not help matters.

Don't forget that SHE accused Haskell of wrong doing. He's innocent until proven guilty. The video he has will prove his innocence, she has nothing to back up her claims.

If you read my earlier post, you will find that she instructed a lawyer to ask for money to keep her mouth shut. When that wasn't forthcoming, she sold her "story" to the press. As I said before, what a money grabbing bitch.

Cymroglan wrote:

England rugby fan wrote:So, if you were falsely accused of something and it affected your livelihood, you wouldn't take action to prove you that were innocent and that you were the victim of a malicious action ?

Yes I would if I was squeaky clean but this homemade video evidence will be ripped apart in court and the fact that there was talk of giving her money to keep her mouth shut would also not help matters.

I think you'll find she asked for money to keep her mouth shut, it wasn't "offered" at all and that's why the story ended up in the press, the way I understand the situation is that the hotel worker in question asked for "compensation" in return for not publicising the incident; that could be construed as "blackmail" if you look at it in another light, but if you set out with a subjective opinion that Haskell, Hartley and Ashton are clearly a$$h0l£s then I wouldn't be surprised if you see it differently.

If the "homemade video evidence" directly contradicts the version of events she sold to the newspapers, she wont have a leg to stand on, if it does correlate her story and vindicate her in the matter, Haskell would have to be a complete Terw@t to contemplate a court action based on the only evidence he has at his disposal, namely THAT video.

A distracting annoyance in the aftermath of England's woeful World Cup, but personally, although I think the players in question were purile and immature in their actions and words during the incident, I'm backing Haskell in his bid to clear his name.

Stupid is one thing, but being labelled as a borderline sex-offender is something else.

And they will bring up his previous cr*p again from his school days.Anyone with a brain would let sleeping dogs lie.
Why am I bothered?

Yet it is understood that, despite the fact the players protested their innocence, and claimed to have video evidence to prove it, the RFU engaged with negotiations with Newton's lawyer after an apology from the players was not deemed good enough
Haskell, Ashton and Hartley were then told to pay Newton NZ$30,000 (£14,350) to prevent a story appearing in a national newspaper.
The three players refused to pay the money, having already apologised to Newton, and insisting they were guilty of nothing more than light-hearted banter. Unsurprisingly, a water-down version of Newton's story then appeared in the papers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding was that the RFU had advised the players to give her the money and the point I was making about the video evidence is that it could very easily be edited and the court would know that.
If I was in the same situation I certainly would have made the video evidence public as soon as this story made the news and I would have presumed that the legal team working for the RFU would also have done the same.
She said she has video evidence now we are being told that he has but why have we not seen any ?
And the fact the players see it as being light hearted banter and maybe most of us would but would the court see it as being just that.

Taffineastbourne wrote:And they will bring up his previous cr*p again from his school days.Anyone with a brain would let sleeping dogs lie.
Why am I bothered?

Was this "cr*p from his school days" subject to legal action ? I thought not. Not quite sure why you're defending the money grabber.

Cymroglan wrote:Yet it is understood that, despite the fact the players protested their innocence, and claimed to have video evidence to prove it, the RFU engaged with negotiations with Newton's lawyer after an apology from the players was not deemed good enough
Haskell, Ashton and Hartley were then told to pay Newton NZ$30,000 (£14,350) to prevent a story appearing in a national newspaper.
The three players refused to pay the money, having already apologised to Newton, and insisting they were guilty of nothing more than light-hearted banter. Unsurprisingly, a water-down version of Newton's story then appeared in the papers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
My understanding was that the RFU had advised the players to give her the money and the point I was making about the video evidence is that it could very easily be edited and the court would know that.
If I was in the same situation I certainly would have made the video evidence public as soon as this story made the news and I would have presumed that the legal team working for the RFU would also have done the same.
She said she has video evidence now we are being told that he has but why have we not seen any ?
And the fact the players see it as being light hearted banter and maybe most of us would but would the court see it as being just that.

So, we have it that she tried to extort money from the England players and when this failed, she sold her story to the press. She will not win in court as her evidence is "heresay", she has to prove that the players were abusive. Typical of some of you Welsh posters to keep jumping on the anti-English bandwagon. Well played lads

England rugby fan

Are you not capable of having a debate without letting your insecurities come to the surface.

Cymroglan, are you not capable to make a post without your anti English bias come to the surface ?

Could you point out any anti English bias in any of my posts ?

They're quite clear for everyone to see...

They are not clear to me at all so could you point out to me where I have shown any anti English bias in any shape or form ?
I even asked my wife who is English to read this thread so that she could point out the errors of my ways but she found nothing that even come close as suggesting that I was anti-English.

It seems that one of the Welsh posters is a bit sensitive about the term I've used to describe that woman several times tonight and only once it has been complained about.

The facts are that she tried to extort money from the RFU. When they told her to Foxtrot Oscar, she sold her story to the press. What does that tell you about the woman concerned ? Money grabbing <expletive deleted> perchance ?

I was bought up in age before "Sexism","Racism"," Ageism",and all the other Pc terms.What passed for friendly banter then is Non -PC now.If a team of Rugby players,in there cups,went "Phoawr" to a young lady.
She would either smile,or make comments like "Drop Dead Creep" maybe followed by a slap across the face or a knee in the B******.
During touring days,and RWCs many foul deeds were covered up by flashing cash.
In 2009 Bastreud claimed he was beaten up in the streets,by New Zealanders after Nz`s narrow defeat.Headline News Scoop
On investigation it turned out he had a Drunken argument with his own team mates and come of worst.NO headlines.
England,France,Nz all had disciplinary allegations made against them.
All we have heard is allegations in" Squeeky Gate",is trial by Media,a series of Leaks.
NO ONE knows exactly what happened except those concerned,hence Fines,Appeals,threats to sue etc.
What a player in there cups says,in what they think is friendly banter,maybe taken as Sexist abuse by another.
Having seen the transcript in the Telegraph of Haskells defence ,when asking a Female helper,for a coded "Blow Job"[at least that what seems to be implied].
One could see that might lead to offence being taken,trouble is now there is no privacy for sportsmen.
Evey one has a Camera/recorder in there Mobile phone,and the unscrouplous are eager to get a quick buck from the Media.
I bet someone is making big bucks out of these leaks to the press.

Like it or not, the media are only interested in the sensational 'out of all proportional' story. If you give them an inch they will take a mile and run with it for as long as possible - fact.

The hotel worker didn't engineer the incident even if she later tried to exploit it. Three English players put themselves in a position they shouldn't have. No one will benefit from any legal action and the last thing English Rugby needs is more negative publicity. I would have thought that English fans on here would understand that. Haskell has a preference for opening his mouth when there's nothing to be said. He should view this as an opportunity to grow up and shut up.

Haskel has a video of the whole event taken by Hartley. If he wants to clear his name because all Players involved are innocent and Ms Newton was lying they could just release the video, surely that would be conclusive evidence.

I agree with Offload that Haskell and co would be much smarter not taking this further.

maestegmafia wrote:Haskel has a video of the whole event taken by Hartley. If he wants to clear his name because all Players involved are innocent and Ms Newton was lying they could just release the video, surely that would be conclusive evidence.

I agree with Offload that Haskell and co would be much smarter not taking this further.

If Haskell is going to sue as he says it is potentially sub judice & he would be wise to keep it to himself & his lawyer.
No one is totally innocent here but most can see through the different agendas. Those that don't like Haskell/England per se will likewise have a tainted view.

That is true if Haskell's legal team do take this to Court then they obviously cant show the video as it would be the key evidence.

But the two outcomes of a court case are unlikely to do anymore to clearing his name of the incident than showing video evidence to the public. Certainly a lot cheaper than his apparent £80,000 expenditure. It is something that he has already said he will do to clear his name of any "falsehood".

The Telegraph wrote:The deadline for the apology expired on Friday night and Haskell’s legal representatives have warned Newton that without it their client “will take the appropriate steps to clear his name and to recover his financial loss.”

Haskell’s lawyer also warns Newton that a video of the incident, filmed by Hartley, will be made public to demonstrate “the falsehood” of the allegations that she has made.

Haskell is thought to have already run up legal fees of over £80,000 as he bids to clear his name while the fallout from the controversy resulted in a lucrative offer from a Super 15 club being withdrawn.

The court case is evidently about recovering what Haskell has lost financially.

TJ wrote:Suing for libel merely makes the accusation more widely known and even if he wins he will get Eff all.
a sensible man would walk away

But would an innocent man?

maestegmafia wrote:
The court case is evidently about recovering what Haskell has lost financially.

How is he going to recover what he lost from a student that made less from selling her story than he's already spent? I'm not even sure this is really about clearing his name either, I can't see sueing producing any more information in his favour, I think he just wants to teach the girl a lesson, give her a reputation that reflects her actions and make sure she has lost from the incident rather than making any money from it. Maybe not the most sensible or financially astute course of action, but maybe what he feels as justice if he is indignant about the affair, and worth his outlay.

If more people in the public eye pushed these sort of things to the bitter end as opposed to just letting them slide for the least amount of fuss, then we'd probably have fewer people peddling lies for cash in the first place. I'm certainly happier with this course of action than the shameful initial recommendation to pay her off a large sum to get rid of her irrespective of the facts, that's just a green light to characters of her sort for leeching off misrepresentation.

Basically Haskell has threatened to sue the hotel worker if she hadn't retracted her claims.

Well it seems she has not so the ball is in his court now.

niwatts wrote:

maestegmafia wrote:
The court case is evidently about recovering what Haskell has lost financially.

How is he going to recover what he lost from a student that made less from selling her story than he's already spent? I'm not even sure this is really about clearing his name either, I can't see sueing producing any more information in his favour, I think he just wants to teach the girl a lesson, give her a reputation that reflects her actions and make sure she has lost from the incident rather than making any money from it. Maybe not the most sensible or financially astute course of action, but maybe what he feels as justice if he is indignant about the affair, and worth his outlay.

If more people in the public eye pushed these sort of things to the bitter end as opposed to just letting them slide for the least amount of fuss, then we'd probably have fewer people peddling lies for cash in the first place. I'm certainly happier with this course of action than the shameful initial recommendation to pay her off a large sum to get rid of her irrespective of the facts, that's just a green light to characters of her sort for leeching off misrepresentation.

It appears that the "shameful initial recommendation to pay her off a large sum to get rid of her irrespective of the facts" was the RFU's idea which Haskell protested against and didn't commit to.

If he sues it keeps it in the news. Even if he wins and its far from a forgone conclusion he will not gain anything.

Just shut up and it will go away

Whatever compensation package the RFU and this woman's lawyers came up with, I think Haskell was right to tell them where to shove it (if Haskell's version of events are true).

Haskell has already lost out on a contract because his reputation has been tarnished by all this. I agree with niwatts, financially he might not win, but he can clear his name and bring justice to the hotel worker, which I think would be a satisfactory conclusion for him.

TJ wrote:If he sues it keeps it in the news. Even if he wins and its far from a forgone conclusion he will not gain anything.

Just shut up and it will go away

What he has been accused of is, in many countries, an offence that counts as a sex crime. This sort of thing does not go away. It may go quiet, but people will believe that he was quilty. If he is innocent, and if he can afford the legal fees then I believe he should pursue this to clear his name.

The most despicable thing is that the RFU tried to organise hush money. If the allegations were true they shoul dbe heard and the players punished. If not then you should not pay a "bribe".

I do not have huge regard for "The Brand" but by firstly refusing to pay hush money, then secondly refusing to return the questionnaire as he doubted the ~RFUs promise of confidentiality, he has gone up in my esteem.

If he is innocent then yes he should fight it all the way but the fact that he has threatened to sue should not be deemed as evidence that nothing untoward took place.
My understanding is that the girl was given a deadline to apologise but that deadline has now passed ,I would presume that her legal representative had advised her not to apologise.
The ball is now in Haskell 's court and if he and his legal team want this to end up in court then they need to make sure that he is squeaky clean.

LondonTiger wrote:

TJ wrote:If he sues it keeps it in the news. Even if he wins and its far from a forgone conclusion he will not gain anything.

Just shut up and it will go away

What he has been accused of is, in many countries, an offence that counts as a sex crime. This sort of thing does not go away. It may go quiet, but people will believe that he was quilty. If he is innocent, and if he can afford the legal fees then I believe he should pursue this to clear his name.

The most despicable thing is that the RFU tried to organise hush money. If the allegations were true they shoul dbe heard and the players punished. If not then you should not pay a "bribe".

I do not have huge regard for "The Brand" but by firstly refusing to pay hush money, then secondly refusing to return the questionnaire as he doubted the ~RFUs promise of confidentiality, he has gone up in my esteem.

Look folks, if Haskell and his mates did something unacceptable, then they should have the book thrown at them.

But this is an age where every mother's son is sues someone else. According to the article, Haskell is out 80,000 quid. That's a lot of dough. Will he recover it? No chance in hell. But, by going after his accuser (again assuming the claims are false) he is carving out space for other athletes and people in the public eye, that they cannot have money extorted form them under very thin pretenses simply to protect their names/organisations. I hope the accusations are false (I don't condone the behaviour accused), and he is able to make his point.

Haskell is only out £80 000 ( and I don't believe it) in legal fees because he is stupid.

If he sues his chances of clearing his name are low, mud will be thrown and will stick, it will cost him a fortunes and he has no chance of recovering the money.

No one wins from a libel case apart from lawyers.

This piece for example would be used to destroy his credibility in court

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-5016838-three-suspended-over-school-porn-video.do

ONe of the things with libel is you can only be libelled if you have a reputation to lose - this shows he has no reputation to lose - same as yo can call Jeffrey archer a liar - cos he is

Transcript of the tape

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/8917064/England-controversy-What-really-happened-in-room-510-with-James-Haskell-Dylan-Hartley-and-Chris-Ashton.html

Three big blokes,one small young woman. If he sues given his school shenanegans and thes transcript he would be a lughing stock