Gonçalo Amaral confirms he will appeal the damages decision to higher Court.

[G-Unit]

I find that Oxford Bloo correctly drilled down to the basic issues in the a quo court ruling.

On the other hand, I agree with Montclair that an appeal process was likely to be accepted.

It's simply not the same system.

I agree, he helped me to understand the ruling, but he wasn't right about the appeal process.

[ferryman]

Just posted on gofundme:

£10
Paul Rees
3 hours ago
Tenner Tuesday. May the presiding appeal judges see how nonsensical the amount awarded was, given the farcical statements of the witnesses who undermined the McCanns' position with almost every word they uttered. Incomprehensible and just plain wrong.

Well, well.

I wonder if we have a clue of the basis of Amaral's appeal?

 

[G-Unit]

Just posted on gofundme:

£10
Paul Rees
3 hours ago
Tenner Tuesday. May the presiding appeal judges see how nonsensical the amount awarded was, given the farcical statements of the witnesses who undermined the McCanns' position with almost every word they uttered. Incomprehensible and just plain wrong.

Well, well.

I wonder if we have a clue of the basis of Amaral's appeal?

Why would he know?

[ferryman]

Why would he know?

Why wouldn't he?

[G-Unit]

Why wouldn't he?

Well, as far as I know he has no special relationship with Amaral. He's just giving his hopes for the appeal as he donates.

[ferryman]

Well, as far as I know he has no special relationship with Amaral. He's just giving his hopes for the appeal as he donates.

The formulation of Amaral's defence and the output on internet message boards does seem to show a causal relation.

A single example will suffice.  It was first mooted on message boards that the McCanns might not be able to bring a legal action in the name of their missing daughter, Madeleine.

And that tack was adopted by Amaral's legal team, but, (as we know) fell flat.

Odd, because Madeleine's name definitely featured in actions brought in respect of the injunction ....

[stephen25000]

The formulation of Amaral's defence and the output on internet message boards does seem to show a causal relation.

A single example will suffice.  It was first mooted on message boards that the McCanns might not be able to bring a legal action in the name of their missing daughter, Madeleine.

And that tack was adopted by Amaral's legal team, but, (as we know) fell flat.

Odd, because Madeleine's name definitely featured in actions brought in respect of the injunction ....

Why not let the appeal court do it's job ?

[ferryman]

So what became of Amaral's confirmed appeal?

Does anyone know?

ETA:

Against the libel verdict in favour of the McCanns ....

[Angelo222]

So what became of Amaral's confirmed appeal?

Does anyone know?

ETA:

Against the libel verdict in favour of the McCanns ....

As you well know the word libel was not mentioned once in the court proceedings.  The McCanns sought and won damages because of the injury Mr Amaral caused to their reputations.

Personally I cannot see how any judge could come to that decision without knowing the truth surrounding Madeleine's disappearance.

[Mr Gray]

As you well know the word libel was not mentioned once in the court proceedings.  It was a damages case.

Amaral's support site...who have paid his lawyer...based in Portugal...refer to it as a Libel trial

[ferryman]

Amaral's support site...who have paid his lawyer...based in Portugal...refer to it as a Libel trial

Quite so.

Damage is awarded in respect of something (specified).  That might be libel, slander, nuisance or some other (uk) tort.

Don't know whether civil violations are called the same in Portugal, but broadly the same principles apply.

http://www.inbrief.co.uk/claim-preparations/the-law-of-tort.htm

[Angelo222]

Amaral's support site...who have paid his lawyer...based in Portugal...refer to it as a Libel trial

Totally irrelevant.  As previously pointed out several times to those who don't like it, the words libel and defamation (difamação) do not appear anywhere in the official Portuguese judgement.  That's good enough for me!

[ferryman]

Totally irrelevant.  As previously pointed out several times to those who don't like it, the words libel and defamation (difamação) do not appear anywhere in the official Portuguese judgement.  That's good enough for me!

Why would you expect them to?

As has also been pointed out, damage is never paid in its own right.

It is always paid in respect of something.

[stephen25000]

Why would you expect them to?

As has also been pointed out, damage is never paid in its own right.

It is always paid in respect of something.

This trial should never had occurred as Angelo quote rightly stated, as the cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown

[Angelo222]

Why would you expect them to?

As has also been pointed out, damage is never paid in its own right.

It is always paid in respect of something.

Its clear for anyone to see, the judgement did not seek to prove defamation.  It will be an eye opener however as to what the appeal court make of it.