Here is a line up: Alex Salmond, former head of Scotland, Dame Noeline Taurua, and Siouxsie Wiles, as in the microbiologist. 

The Salmond family is wanting their estate made bankrupt. It comes out of a judicial review over the handling of a couple of complaints against him by civil servants that turned out to be “tainted”. 

In other words, his defence was successful, but the cost of winning proved too high.  

Noeline, I have no idea what her lawyers cost, but you would hope as part of the deal she gets the bill covered. But I doubt it. 

And then Siouxsie Wiles, who you may remember took her employer, Auckland University, to court and won. 

She took mediation arbitration – it went back and forward for a while, but ultimately ended in court. During Covid she was harassed, she claimed her employer should have done more to protect her.  

She has now launched a crowd funding page to help pay her bills. 

The commonality here is all three appear to be on the right side. They have been wronged, they have had to defend themselves, and yet all three appear out of pocket for the experience. 

Wiles has spent thousands – hundreds of thousands. She has taken loans, her and her husband, she won but she is paying off loans. 

Inherently here is a fault with the law. The costs, even when awarded your way, never cover the bill. My question: why not? 

Is justice really served or seen to be done if you can be victorious, if you can defend your name, your honour, or reputation and still go broke? 

Doesn’t that mean the deepest pockets will always triumph?  

The State v Salmond. A sport v a coach. The university v a microbiologist.  

It's one thing to settle – yes it saves court time, but do you settle because you will be broke if you don’t?  

Is being broke and right worth it? Is launching a crowdfunding bid acceptable when you didn’t do anything wrong? 

Is the justice system serving us properly when even the victorious and validated aren’t really winners?