Former Portuguese detective Gonçalo Amaral wins appeal in damages trial.

[faithlilly]

I take it that either you have failed to read Faithlilly's post ... or if you have, you disagree?

My post was written in regard to the huge court costs that the McCanns will be liable for if their appeal to the SC fails and the effect those costs will have if the couple need once again to fund their own search.

[Alice Purjorick]

My post was written in regard to the huge court costs that the McCanns will be liable for if their appeal to the SC fails and the effect those costs will have if the couple need once again to fund their own search.

The validity of the idea that the fund could pay the fees and expenses on the basis that the trial was about the search being impeded, one of the funds objectives, could potentially be called into question if the end result is in favour of Amaral as the court has already ruled the search was not impeded.
One may not remove funds willy nilly from a limited company as some methods attract a tax liability....... &%+((£

[Angelo222]

It's an arrogant assumption (not necessarily wrong) but a strictly personal and private conclusion for most immediate loved-ones of the missing child to reach, in their time and in their way.

Don't get me wrong oh King of the libel, I have every sympathy for the parents of any missing child but given that even Redwood was looking for a body, the inevitable conclusion must be reached.

[Angelo222]

My post was written in regard to the huge court costs that the McCanns will be liable for if their appeal to the SC fails and the effect those costs will have if the couple need once again to fund their own search.

I suspect that Portugal's highest court will do one of two things.  They won't accept the appeal arguments to begin with or they will boot them into touch.  I really don't think the McCanns have a cat in hells chance of overturning the Appeal Court judgement.

[faithlilly]

The validity of the idea that the fund could pay the fees and expenses on the basis that the trial was about the search being impeded, one of the funds objectives, could potentially be called into question if the end result is in favour of Amaral as the court has already ruled the search was not impeded.
One may not remove funds willy nilly from a limited company as some methods attract a tax liability....... &%+((£

Interesting times ahead methinks !

[Angelo222]

What I would like to know is how much these lawyers are pocketing on the back of a little missing girl?

[Alfie]

The validity of the idea that the fund could pay the fees and expenses on the basis that the trial was about the search being impeded, one of the funds objectives, could potentially be called into question if the end result is in favour of Amaral as the court has already ruled the search was not impeded.
One may not remove funds willy nilly from a limited company as some methods attract a tax liability....... &%+((£

Called into question by who?

[Alfie]

Charity stuff as promised:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/277353/cc4text.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/359632/cc4textannexc.pdf

The only issue as I see it is:
A date for a launch was fixed before any one had properly worked out the nuts and bolts. The driver became the pre announced date. Painted into a corner with the only way out to achieve the fanfared launch was to create a private limited company.

Any other offers ?

Oh dear, but that doesn't allow for insinuations that the parents deliberately rejected the offer of charity status because they wanted to keep all the money for themselves to sue anyone that stood in their way does it?

[jassi]

Called into question by who?

A 'concerned forum member', perhaps. There seem to be a few around. 

[slartibartfast]

Oh dear, but that doesn't allow for insinuations that the parents deliberately rejected the offer of charity status because they wanted to keep all the money for themselves to sue anyone that stood in their way does it?

It appears from the cite that the Charity Commission were working with the McCann's representatives on revised wording to set it up as a charity and for reasons undisclosed decided to go ahead with a limited company.

[ShiningInLuz]

It appears from the cite that the Charity Commission were working with the McCann's representatives on revised wording to set it up as a charity and for reasons undisclosed decided to go ahead with a limited company.

Kate's book "Madeleine" p137-138

"BWB, the law firm drawing up the articles of association for the fighting fund, had talked to the Charity Commission about whether it would be eligible for charitable status.  As its objectives were limited to the search for a single child and the beneficiaries were essentially one family, it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met. So the fund took the form of a not-for-profit, private limited company."

[stephen25000]

Kate's book "Madeleine" p137-138

"BWB, the law firm drawing up the articles of association for the fighting fund, had talked to the Charity Commission about whether it would be eligible for charitable status.  As its objectives were limited to the search for a single child and the beneficiaries were essentially one family, it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met. So the fund took the form of a not-for-profit, private limited company."

Trying to go for a charity status might be perceived as an attempt at avoiding tax.

[jassi]

Kate's book "Madeleine" p137-138

"BWB, the law firm drawing up the articles of association for the fighting fund, had talked to the Charity Commission about whether it would be eligible for charitable status.  As its objectives were limited to the search for a single child and the beneficiaries were essentially one family, it was deemed that the 'public benefit' test would not be met. So the fund took the form of a not-for-profit, private limited company."

Has it ever been explained why it was termed a 'fighting fund'  Who were they planning on fighting in those very early days?

[stephen25000]

Has it ever been explained why it was termed a 'fighting fund'  Who were they planning on fighting in those very early days?

Good point Jassi .

Maybe they anticipated court cases, especilly those not following the doctrine of 'abduction'.

[Alice Purjorick]

Oh dear, but that doesn't allow for insinuations that the parents deliberately rejected the offer of charity status because they wanted to keep all the money for themselves to sue anyone that stood in their way does it?

Was it supposed to?

I just thought I would provide links to the pukkah gen so folk were not arguing from the position of ignorance !

You do seem to have come up with your customary sneer rather than provide another "offer" as asked.
Why do you think it panned out the way it did?