Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?

[Angelo222]

you are totally wrong...the courts had to comply with uk libel law....an allegation was amde...it could not be proven...case settled...you dont understand uk libel law

And if the allegations turn out to be true?

[Mr Gray]

And if the allegations turn out to be true?

then the newspapers can go back to court and reclaim ther money...but until then they have to pay it

[Alice Purjorick]

have you followed the argument...angelo suggested that a judge could over rule the out of court settlement and withold the settlement...a ridiculous idea...if that wa sthe case...the mccanns do not have to accept the settlement and can go to court

Which would leave them exposed financially.
The gamble is then will the court award more than they turned down.
If the court does not offer a sum in excess of that turned down a whole new set of rules come into play vis a vis CFA.

[Mr Gray]

Which would leave them exposed financially.
The gamble is then will the court award more than they turned down.
If the court does not offer a sum in excess of that turned down a whole new set of rules come into play vis a vis CFA.

I understand that but....the suggestion that a judge in this type of situaion would bock payment of a settlement is ridiculous...would you not agree..the mccanns would not be disputing the amount...they would be disputing that nothing was being paid

[John]

then the newspapers can go back to court and reclaim ther money...but until then they have to pay it

Bit late when its all spent?

[Mr Gray]

Bit late when its all spent?

that's the law ..as Angelo needs  to realise

[Angelo222]

that's the law ..as Angelo needs  to realise

I think it's you who need to realise that the court has the ultimate say in any out of court settlement and that that settlement is subject to the courts approval.  The court can make any order it sees fit to make which includes freezing the settlement until such time as the allegations are determined. In the McCann case the fate of the child is still unknown, the allegations made by the newspapers are also unproven as is the involvement if any of the parents. In those circumstances imo, a provisional settlement should have been agreed but frozen pending the outcome of the two police Investigations.

IMO it was crazy to settle a libel claim when the facts were unknown.  IMFO English law has been an ass on this occasion while the Portuguese got it absolutely right.

[Angelo222]

It appears that the reason the McCann couple won an out of court settlement was not due to lies being printed, but that at the time the sources could not be confirmed due to the Portuguese secrecy laws. A fact I’m sure the top lawyers working for the McCann couple would have been very much aware of and able to use in their favour...at the time. No doubt they felt safe in the knowledge that due to the secrecy laws the police files would not see the light of day. It seems they hadn't banked on the fact that the shelving of the case would allow those files to be released and eventually end up in the public domain for anyone to read.

Shouldn't the media be looking for their money back on that basis?

[Mr Gray]

It appears that the reason the McCann couple won an out of court settlement was not due to lies being printed, but that at the time the sources could not be confirmed due to the Portuguese secrecy laws. A fact I’m sure the top lawyers working for the McCann couple would have been very much aware of and able to use in their favour...at the time. No doubt they felt safe in the knowledge that due to the secrecy laws the police files would not see the light of day. It seems they hadn't banked on the fact that the shelving of the case would allow those files to be released and eventually end up in the public domain for anyone to read.

Shouldn't the media be looking for their money back on that basis?

You seem to think the court should have witheld payment because the McCann's might not be innocent.... Then you don't understand  UK libel law

[barrier]

I think its always worth remembering the case of J Archer.

1987.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1987/jul/25/archer.politics

Mr Jeffrey Archer was yesterday awarded record libel damages of £500,000 and more still in costs from the Star newspaper for accusing him of paying a prostitute for sex.
With costs of the three-week High Court trial estimated at £700,000, the Star 's front-page story published last November will cost its owners, Express Newspapers more than £1 million.

In 2001.

The end: Archer goes to jail

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334653/The-end-Archer-goes-to-jail.html

Low and behold in 2002 this happened.

Archer pays back libel award in £1.5m settlement with Star

https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/02/dailystar.pressandpublishing



Now I'm not equating Archer with the Mccanns just showing that sometimes all is not what it seems.

[Robittybob1]

I think its always worth remembering the case of J Archer.

1987.


https://www.theguardian.com/uk/1987/jul/25/archer.politics

In 2001.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1334653/The-end-Archer-goes-to-jail.html

Low and behold in 2002 this happened.https://www.theguardian.com/media/2002/oct/02/dailystar.pressandpublishing



Now I'm not equating Archer with the Mccanns just showing that sometimes all is not what it seems.

OK Archer and his friend lied to the court.   Did the McCanns lie?

[barrier]

OK Archer and his friend lied to the court.   Did the McCanns lie?

In the McCann case it never went to court.

[Robittybob1]

In the McCann case it never went to court.

So you are saying they settled out of court.  Therefore what reason could they claim their money back (now that we have established the Archer case wasn't a good example)?

[barrier]

So you are saying they settled out of court.  Therefore what reason could they claim their money back (now that we have established the Archer case wasn't a good example)?

Its an example of what could happen,whether it could happen in an out of court case is another matter,but were court papers served? in the Mccann case?

[Angelo222]

Its an example of what could happen,whether it could happen in an out of court case is another matter,but were court papers served? in the Mccann case?

The papers didn't have the benefit of the files when they decided to settle out of court but they certainly have them now.  I would imagine they are awaiting their opportunity to pounce.