Janet Woollard and kitesurfing complaints

The point for me is that the Woolards offerered the girl $100k before the court case, but the court decided $230k was an appropiate compensation.

I obviously do not know either Luke or his parents resources, but they clearly have some, to have offered the $100k. It seems like a commercial negotiation to me.

If I found myself in such a rotten situation with one of my kids, I would:

1) Do my utmost to ensure it did not go to court by looking after the girl all the way. and;

2) I would give my kid a good kick in the arse, then support him with a loan to be repaid over the long term.

People with no assets do not get sued. It is clear therefore that the real target of the law suit was the parents.

Should parents be legally/financially responsible for the action of their adult children? I agree this is not realistic.

Which of these policies stands when misconduct (eg. drunk driving) is involved?

Of course it is commercial negotiations, why would anybody in their right mind pay more than they needed to?

I just read Lukes blog, it appears the Ms Campbell got greedy. Wollards acted in good faith prior to proceedings, regular visits, this was barred (presumably after Ms Campbell received legal advice) and when offered $100k in good faith for medical costs, she would not even engage in reasonable negotiations. How were the Woolards to know what the costs involved were prior to the case. I would have thought $100k as a preliminary goodwill guesture was fairly generous. Ms Campbell then elected to proceed to court with bad legal advice and in doing so wasting $$ on legal fees that could otherwise have been used to contribute toward legal costs.

The mroe I consider this, the more it sounds as though she is trying to escape the consequences of her actions and milk what she can from a bad situation.

Move on everybody. I think we all probably did some pretty dangerous stuff back in the day as driver of vehicle or boat and manged to get through unscathed. Unfortunately those onboard that boat were not so lucky.. He certainly isnt the first skipper to have a BAC >.05% on the river at 1am..

If one of my mates jumped in the car with me after a few beers at the pub because they wanted to avoid the booze bus and I had a prang, I would like to think they would not try taking me to the cleaners for medical costs.. This would not happen as I do not drink and drive, I personally am very strict with myself in this respect. I am a realist though.

I have, this is beside the point, (although in my oppinion not relevant as Ms Campbell needs to take responsibilty for being on the boat knowing the driver was pissed). When Woolards offered $100k this was off the cuff before the full extent of all costs was known. This was a preliminary offer, BEFORE the court determined what it considered a fair amount. Ms Campbell did not allow Woolards the opportunity to reach a fair amount through negotiations. They were being reasonable, she could have repaid the same courtesy before going to the magistrate. I am no lawyer but I understand full well that positive outcomes are rarely reached in the courts. This was no exception.
Woolard retains the scumbag tag, Campbell has a big medical bill and no closer to receiving her so called 'entitlement to lost income'.

Who's really getting REVENGE?
You took us to court so you get NOTHING, not the $230k, not the $100k, NOTHING!!!
That's revenge.

Regarding compulsory third party insurance. It would not have helped (if your pissy driving I'm quiet sure it's useless) and now more money for boat owners who do the right thing.

Luke, I think you need to pay up as what you did was stupid. BUT gutsy effort posting here - most people would not have the courage so you've just gone up a few pegs in IMHO

Just on the off chance, do you still have Kate Campbell's phone number?

The legal strategy wasnt flawed. In this case the only flaw in the legal system is the one which allows anyone to hide behind bankruptcy laws intended to allow some compassion where the 'you must pay side of the law' would see the destitute ruined for life.
You, your family and the family boat are responsible. The laws of this land have determined that your culpability here is set at $230000. Your mate 'kiting' says why should anyone pay more than they have to. Well - if we ignore basic human rights and leaving compassion out of it he is right. But here we have a court your mother represents as a law maker displaying to the world that claiming 'bankruptcy' is an OK stategy to evade your responsibility as determined under the democratic process.
And you cannot possibly claim "its the only option".
You have options open to you by the silver-spoonful.
Even if it is your own personal choice to take this course of action your parents should see it as their duty to step in and prevent it - if for no other reason than to teach you the lesson that this is totally and absolutely unacceptable. ie act like parents in the first instance and secondly to set the example to the 1000s of other wealthy people who exploit this socially compassionate, but easily abused, legal way out clause.

Over & out from me - It makes me sick to the stomach.
I reckon I am pretty open & fair minded but anyone who disagrees with me on this one!! Well? I just dont want to ever even know them.

Puppet, not "my mate" never met the bloke. Just providing a balanced view.

You are incorrect as it was a flawed legal strategy, the laws did not change during the court case, anybody with half a brain would have been well aware of the outcome before such a case went in front of the magistrate. I would suspect no lawyer would advise her to proceed in the manner she did and rather such an approach could only have been driven by hate to see Luke file for bankruptcy which at the end of the day has no material affect on him in my oppinion.

"Sick to the stomache" - I repeat my previously stated analogy; your leaving the pub with a mate after a few to many beers, you dont want to drive but your mate says I'll drive and give you a lift home. You say righto cheers mate. He crashes and you belt your head and suffer severe injuries. You then sue the pants off your mate for medical bills. Whos is the sh?t bloke? Who makes you feel "sick to the stomache?" I am sure your mate would feel terrible, but no need to try destroying his life also.

Kiting, you're analogy is seriously flawed. I've been in a situation of a single vehicle crash as a backseat passenger when I was 17. All 5 passengers sued the girl driving. Fortunately for her and us, third party insurance paid out. The girl that was sitting next to me is in a wheelchair for life! Should she have not sued just to be a good mate?

My family has also had a court decision go against us due to a lack of evidence against a business that did the wrong thing by us. It's cost us at least $200k in cash and at least the same again in potential earnings from that money. We could have declared bankruptcy but chose to pay the bills and keep our morals intact. The Woollard family can't say the same!

OK Kiting - Im over the gut wrenching phase so I'll respond again with a little calm.
The issue here that incites reactions like mine has nothing to do with the whose mates with who or any other considerations at all.
For whatever motivations you imply into the situation the legal system has run its course and our 'fair & just' arbitrators have assessed everything before them and come to a determination. We can only hope that lawyers from both sides raised every pro & con on both sides. Doesnt matter why or how - its done.
Whats deplorable in the extreme here is that you have an exceedingly wealthy family - and clearly its the family that should take responsibility. Its fine to have the son saying he will take full responsibility but it was a 'family' boat; his excursion to an obvious excessive drinking party was approved and condoned by his parents and it was his father that chose to have a shared use boat uninsured for 3rd party. They have obviously admitted some involvement (responsibility to be involved in the compo) by offering the $100000 in the first place.
Whats happening now is that the only assetless side of the triangle is being allowed (seemingly encouraged) to abuse a legal provision which is intended only to offer those in desperate need of an 'out' clause the ability to work through their financial problems with some hope of rebuilding a life for themselves.
Regardless of how you view the incident &/or the judgement it is transparently obvious here that 'the family' have chosen to abuse the law. No one has the right to threaten take $X or get nothing. That is nothing less than despotic blackmail. The send the bankrupt plan was obviously part of the game plan form day dot.
This is what I and every other worthwhile member of our society should be outraged over. The family is obviously wealthy. $230000 is not going to alter their lifestyle one iota. Luke himself - whilst he may still be enjoying his lavish lifestyle by borrowing assets which he himself admits were 'bought for family use' and 'rarely used by my parents' clearly paints an accurate picyure of a family unit facing a family crisis.
The son has been taught by his parents -
1) that its OK to take the boat out when the intention is solely to attend an event where drinking is the prime/only goal of the night (Im sure they have all learnt that wasnt a very wise lesson to have delivered)
2) that if the shyte hits the fan then we can determine what will or wont be fair & just.
3) that if things dont go your way then you can simply abuse the law and still get away with it.

There is enough said in the media about the 'little' people abusing the system to suggest to us all that we can cheat & lie & use the system to gain unfair advantage but here we have high profile, wealthy members of society working the system (I admit all quite legally) to defy what the legal arbitrator has declared as what society deems appropriate compensation due from the responsible party.
Janet Woollard is supposed to be our representative to ensure that society is and remains fair & just for ALL. For somerone in this position - irrespective of personal wealth etc etc is indubitably unconscionable.
It flies directly in the face of the very core values that those in power MUST not only uphold but encourage all others - regardless of their station in life or hardship to adhere to for the sake maintaining a fair & civilised society.
For a law maker to even consider taking this course of action exposes a naturally flawed personality trait which should never be allowed amongst those who hold the power to steer the course of our society.

Ive been around this place a while now - way too long for my liking :-(
In all my years I have never seen such a deplorable, deliberate and calculated abuse of the system by anyone who has asked for our confidence to help shape our community.
If I we in parliament today I would be moving to have her removed from office immediately and stripped of all parliamentary after-life privileges - if for no other reason but to set an example to us all that this behaviour is way beyond acceptable anywhere. As an independent that may not be possible - but the population will cast their judgement eventually. I can only hope that the show of strength from the honest & humane amongst is sufficient to reinforce that our society is basically 'good'

He likes letterboxes?!? Go figure

There seems to be a misguided opinion that declaration of bankruptcy removes your obligation to your creditors. It doesn't. All it does essentially is puts your own personal finances in the hands of a trustee, who administers them for you. Payments to creditors can also be increased if the bankrupt party starts earning more in the future. So if Luke declared bankruptcy, he would still have to make payments to Kate, which would increase as his earnings increased.

The only way Luke would be able to claim bankruptcy is if he and Kate were unable to come to an agreement on paying the settlement. It seems Kate doesn't want to negotiate with Luke on this matter, so Luke would have no choice to declare bankruptcy. Not only this, Kate would currently be a creditor to her legal team, meaning she probably owes them about $46k in legal fees if the fee structure was based on a percentage basis.

Although $100k seems to be stingy this amount was offered prior to figures being discussed in a court setting, by Luke's parents who have no obligation to pay anything. It was also open to negotiation. Kate should have been advised by her legal team to continue negotiation, not go to court.

With respect to Luke's parents having some sort of responsibility to pay. They don't. I used to borrow my parent's car to go to parties when I was 18. They knew drinking would be involved, but it was my responsibility to not drink at the party. If I had got drunk, crashed the car and seriously injured my friends, it would have been my responsibility, not my parents'.

Apparently she used three different lawyers. My guess is that all three would've advised her to settle, whereas the third was the only one willing to proceed through the courts.

The harsh bottom line is that if you sue someone with no assets, you get nothing.