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

[pegasus]

They haven't received a penny.
Merely escalating legal bills. ...

Yes legal costs since early 2008 IMO and not a cent to show for it.

[mercury]

Yes legal costs since early 2008 IMO and not a cent to show for it.

They must know dirt cheap lawyers then as Geryy tells us the vast majority of the fund has gone directly on search fees...exact words

[Alfred R Jones]

No because it was not a resounding failure either.

Well from now on I'm going to adopt the position that it was a resounding failure just for the joy of having you contradict me.

[pegasus]

They must know dirt cheap lawyers then as Geryy tells us the vast majority of the fund has gone directly on search fees...exact words

IMO the preparations (with associated legal costs) to take civil action against Mr Amaral were possibly already being made in the first quarter of 2008.

[mercury]

IMO the preperations (with associated legal costs) to take civil action against Mr Amaral were possibly already being made in the first quarter of 2008.

No doubt for vexatious litigants or people who threaten to sue at every opportunity

[misty]

IMO the preparations (with associated legal costs) to take civil action against Mr Amaral were possibly already being made in the first quarter of 2008.

You think someone from the publishers had leaked details of Amaral's draft manuscript at that stage? I'm shocked.

[Alice Purjorick]

Well from now on I'm going to adopt the position that it was a resounding failure just for the joy of having you contradict me.

Why not just adopt a position which reflects what it [the judgement] really is ?

[pegasus]

You think someone from the publishers had leaked details of Amaral's draft manuscript at that stage? I'm shocked.

No, just interpreting legalese in accounts Misty.

[misty]

No, just interpreting legalese in accounts Misty.

How can you make that interpretation from the accounts? Amaral was still a serving officer in the first half of 2008. On what basis would they have been preparing to sue him?

[Alfred R Jones]

Why not just adopt a position which reflects what it [the judgement] really is ?

Because you will argue that white is black and it gets very tedious.

[Alice Purjorick]

Because you will argue that white is black and it gets very tedious.

I think the whole deal is pretty straightforward.
Try this angle:
In no country can a lower court overturn the ruling of a higher court. Once that is accepted things start to drop into place.

[Alfred R Jones]

I think the whole deal is pretty straightforward.
Try this angle:
In no country can a lower court overturn the ruling of a higher court. Once that is accepted things start to drop into place.

Yeah, whatever you say - you're absolutely right, totally agree 100%.

[Jean-Pierre]

I think the whole deal is pretty straightforward.
Try this angle:
In no country can a lower court overturn the ruling of a higher court. Once that is accepted things start to drop into place.

And that is clearly not happening in this case, is it?

So I cannot see why you even bothered to mention it. 

[Alice Purjorick]

And that is clearly not happening in this case, is it?

So I cannot see why you even bothered to mention it.

Fair enough, if you can't see why.

[Jean-Pierre]

Fair enough, if you can't see why.

I assume you are not conflating two different cases.

The ex parte injunction was, and subsequent appeals, was one case.  The supreme court simply overturned the ex parte injunction and restored the status quo. 

The libel trial over Amaral's book, documentary etc was a completely separate case, and the outcome (damages of E 500k, interest no further sales of the book, video etc).   

So there is no question of any ruling being "overturned".

Sorry to burst your bubble.