• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Neil Gaiman "cancelled"?

I thought the silence was because we're waiting for the NZ case to be heard or dismissed.
I don't think there is any active case in NZ. If anyone knows otherwise please tell us.
I did find this:
Pavlovich appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals.
She told the court New Zealand "offered her no remedy at all", and alleged the only compensation she would be able to get in New Zealand was mental health treatment, which she was now ineligible for as she lived in Scotland.
On Monday, a decision from the US Court of Appeals said it had found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit and reaffirmed its judgement to dismiss the action.
"Everyone agrees New Zealand is available as a forum because Gaiman has consented to being sued there," it said.
So, although "the ball is in her court" as they say, her public statements seem to indicate that she doesn't intend to bring a case in NZ because 'New Zealand "offered her no remedy at all"'.
 
Well, he has won his legal case, that it true. Whether he has been absolved in the court of public opinion is a separate question.
No, he hasn't 'won' his legal case because it wasn't heard.

If it gets resubmitted and dismissed in NZ it will be heard in the US.
 
Update:


"A Wisconsin judge has dismissed the lawsuit filed by Scarlett Pavlovich against Neil Gaiman and his estranged spouse Amanda Palmer [...] on procedural grounds."

He says:

"The only connection that Wisconsin or the United States has with this lawsuit is that Gaiman has a residence in this state and he may live here currently. […] Under these circumstances, it is clear that New Zealand is the more appropriate forum for resolving this dispute, so the court will dismiss the case without prejudice. If Pavlovich sues Gaiman in New Zealand, and he refuses to accept service there, Pavlovich may move to reopen this case."

It's like nobody read the thread's last update (above) from a year ago.
 
No, he hasn't 'won' his legal case because it wasn't heard.

If it gets resubmitted and dismissed in NZ it will be heard in the US.
For now he has had it dismissed in the US, albeit without prejudice. The judge said (quoting your post above) "If Pavlovich sues Gaiman in New Zealand, and he refuses to accept service there, Pavlovich may move to reopen this case." So apparently the only way that it would be heard in the US is if Gaiman "refuses to accept service" in NZ, not if he agrees to accept service but the case is dismissed on other legal grounds.
On Monday, a decision from the US Court of Appeals said it had found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit and reaffirmed its judgement to dismiss the action.
"Everyone agrees New Zealand is available as a forum because Gaiman has consented to being sued there," it said.
So we'll see. The ball's in her court, as they say.
 
I thought the silence was because we're waiting for the NZ case to be heard or dismissed.
Is there even a case in New Zealand?

From this article, it sounds like there might not be.


Pavlovich appealed the dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals.
She told the court New Zealand "offered her no remedy at all", and alleged the only compensation she would be able to get in New Zealand was mental health treatment, which she was now ineligible for as she lived in Scotland.
On Monday, a decision from the US Court of Appeals said it had found no abuse of discretion in the district court's decision to dismiss the lawsuit and reaffirmed its judgement to dismiss the action.
"Everyone agrees New Zealand is available as a forum because Gaiman has consented to being sued there," it said.


ETA: Ninjaed by Puppycow.
 
Last edited:
It's like nobody read the thread's last update (above) from a year ago.
Well, there were two other cases dismissed since then, and then an appeal against those decisions since then, though the overall situation is largely unchanged.
 
No, he hasn't 'won' his legal case because it wasn't heard.

If it gets resubmitted and dismissed in NZ it will be heard in the US.
There is certainly a stretch of extra-territoriality. A NZ citizen suing a UK citizen for events in NZ in a US court. This seems to be what the US government complains about with the ICC! I guess all Gaiman needs to do is sell his house and there would be no even vague grounds of US jurisdiction. The justification for the case against the wife is slightly greater, as a US citizen*, but would also seem an over stretch. The case should clearly be brought in NZ, but my guess is there aren't vulture law firms in NZ and damages would be less.

In the UK she might have a claim under modern slavery legislation, but I don't think a UK court would accept jurisdiction.

ETA
Since the ex-wife has no money, I don't think the lawyers will pursue her.
 
Last edited:
She will be unlikely to file suit in New Zealand, because she knows as well as anyone that it will cost a truckload of money with very little chance of success, and if she loses, she pays all over her own legal fees, and between a half and two-thirds of Gaiman's legal fees, plus all of the court costs.

Also, burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a lawsuit in New Zealand, she would have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that what she said happened actually did happen... she has no forensics, and no witnesses to her claim - its a case of she said v he said.
 
Last edited:
She will be unlikely to file suit in New Zealand, because she knows as well as anyone that it will cost a truckload of money with very little chance of success, and if she loses, she pays all over her own legal fees, and between a half and two-thirds of Gaiman's legal fees, plus all of the court costs.

Also, burden of proof is on the plaintiff in a lawsuit in New Zealand, she would have to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that what she said happened actually did happen... she has no forensics, and no witnesses to her claim - its a case of she said v he said.
Presumably the same thing applies in a civil case in the US? The complainant has to prove on the balance of probability that the events happened and harm resulted. I guess the major difference was she had a US law firm that agreed to take on the case 'pro bono' for a share of the damages (usually >30%), and US damages can include punitive damages which makes them much greater than simple compensation for harm done. which is what she would get in NZ. My guess is they hoped to force a deal / NDA rather than forcing Gaiman through the high cost of a US trial. An NZ court case is likely cheaper, so easier for Gaiman to fight.

She might get a NZ firm to do some pro bono work, particularly to settling with a NDA.
 
Last edited:
Presumably the same thing applies in a civil case in the US?
The complainant has to prove on the balance of probability that the events happened and harm resulted. I guess the major difference was she had a US law firm that agreed to take on the case 'pro bono' for a share of the damages (usually >30%), and US damages can include punitive damages which makes them much greater than simple compensation for harm done. which is what she would get in NZ.
In the US, everyone pays their own costs
US court has ruled they have no jurisdiction, and appeals court has confirmed. There is nowhere to go now in the US, so its a done deal there

My guess is they hoped to force a deal / NDA rather than forcing Gaiman through the high cost of a US trial. An NZ court case is likely cheaper
Not much cheaper. Its still a huge risk

She might get a NZ firm to do some pro bono work, particularly to settling with a NDA.

1,374,720 Lawyers in the US
2150 Barristers in NZ

Pigs_will_fly.jpg
 
I don't think there is any active case in NZ. If anyone knows otherwise please tell us.
I did find this:

So, although "the ball is in her court" as they say, her public statements seem to indicate that she doesn't intend to bring a case in NZ because 'New Zealand "offered her no remedy at all"'.
You are so right, any woman who claims to have been raped and does not persue the fullest legal battles about it is a liar. ANd all those BS stats about rape victims not coming forword more liars clearly.
 
You are so right, any woman who claims to have been raped and does not persue the fullest legal battles about it is a liar. ANd all those BS stats about rape victims not coming forword more liars clearly.
Of course I said nothing of the sort and you're attacking a strawman.
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom