Compensation and the WOC Issue.

[ferryman]

And that went to the Supreme Court... No one brought up this issue during all that time?

Indeed not

A thought that occurs to me is that Santos, in his statement following being sacked by Amaral,  appeared to be under the impression that he had landed a coup in questioning the McCanns' right to bring an action in Madeleine's name.

Perhaps Amaral discovered different, and that might have had something to do with the parting of the ways?

A guess, I confess ...

[Mr Moderator]

As a Ward of Court, Madeleine and all her affairs are under the control of the High Court.  The McCanns might be her parents but they do not have the authority to determine any legal issues on her behalf.  The right to sue on her behalf is such a legal issue and will require the authority of her guardian ie the High Court. 

[Victoria]

As a Ward of Court, Madeleine and all her affairs are under the control of the High Court.  The McCanns might be her parents but they do not have the authority to determine any legal issues on her behalf.  The right to sue on her behalf is such a legal issue and will require the authority of her guardian ie the High Court.

That simply isn't the case, as far as my understanding goes, and I doubt you are able to cite any legal authority that supports your claims (ie statute and case law).

[slartibartfast]

That simply isn't the case, as far as my understanding goes, and I doubt you are able to cite any legal authority that supports your claims (ie statute and case law).

So what's the point of the WoC?

[Benice]

So what's the point of the WoC?

IIRC one of the main reasons was that if Madeleine was found in a foreign country - she would have to be handed over to the British Embassy - and so there could be no question/delay/legal arguement at all about whether or not she should be returned home immediately.

(from memory so am happy to be corrected if necessary)

[jassi]

Yes, I read something similar. I wonder how that would actually work in practice as it would depend on the country in question recognising the primacy of the British court.

[John]

Look at it the way, Amaral didn't go to the expense and bother of getting High Court documents if the WOC issue was a false dawn.  The High Court is responsible for all legal issues relating to Madeleine at this moment in time.

[Mr Gray]

Look at it the way, Amaral didn't go to the expense and bother of getting High Court documents if the WOC issue was a false dawn.  The High Court is responsible for all legal issues relating to Madeleine at this moment in time.

The mccanns have been given 30 days to clarify the decision I believe which PROVES it is not as cut and dry as you and other posters think

[Victoria]

Anyone who thinks leave of the court is required in order for the parents (who will still share parental responsibility) of a child to instigate a claim for damages has absolutely no idea what the law relating to wards of court does.

Personally, I don't believe ward if court has even been raised as an issue in any substantive sense by Amaral's side, and I believe the only reason it is being brought up on blogs by Amaral's supporters is as an excuse to try to raise money for his legal bills. If there was any hope of defeating this action by raising the ward of court issue, a) it would have been done at the start of proceedings so that Amaral didn't have to waste thousands of euros on legal fees over the years, and b) he wouldn't have felt so desperate that he needed to sack his lawyer just as the trial was scheduled to conclude.

[jassi]

The mccanns have been given 30 days to clarify the decision I believe which PROVES it is not as cut and dry as you and other posters think

I thought it was in order to produce documents to prove that they had the appropriate authority when they initiated the proceedings.

[Victoria]

I thought it was in order to produce documents to prove that they had the appropriate authority when they initiated the proceedings.

They don't need to produce any documents. Unless the High Court in the UK is proactively trying to stop them bringing proceedings in their daughters name ( by way of injunction) then they do not need any authority. And by the way, if the High Court was going to seek such an injunction it would have done so at the start of proceedings.

[jassi]

They don't need to produce any documents. Unless the High Court in the UK is proactively trying to stop them bringing proceedings in their daughters name ( by way of injunction) then they do not need any authority. And by the way, if the High Court was going to seek such an injunction it would have done so at the start of proceedings.

Your interpretation differs from Davel's which is what I was responding to. He seems to think that the McCanns need to provide clarification for the court.

[Victoria]

Your interpretation differs from Davel's which is what I was responding to. He seems to think that the McCanns need to provide clarification for the court.

I think davel has given the benefit of the doubt to the claims on some blogs that the ward of court status has even been substantively raised in the libel trial. I don't believe it has been and I don't trust the people behind the blogs in question to provide an accurate (or honest) account of what is happening.

It makes no sense for the ward of court issue to be raised this late in proceedings, and in any case, there is simply no argument to make. The McCanns still have parental responsibility in respect of their daughter. It is now shared with the court, but they are not automatically barred from taking any action in her name. The only way they can be barred from doing so is if the High Court specifically seeks to prevent them from doing so by way of injunction. Neither Amaral, nor anyone else, has any influence over this. It is dishonest of Amaral and his supporters to pretend otherwise.

[DCI]

I think davel has given the benefit of the doubt to the claims on some blogs that the ward of court status has even been substantively raised in the libel trial. I don't believe it has been and I don't trust the people behind the blogs in question to provide an accurate (or honest) account of what is happening.

It makes no sense for the ward of court issue to be raised this late in proceedings, and in any case, there is simply no argument to make. The McCanns still have parental responsibility in respect of their daughter. It is now shared with the court, but they are not automatically barred from taking any action in her name. The only way they can be barred from doing so is if the High Court specifically seeks to prevent them from doing so by way of injunction. Neither Amaral, nor anyone else, has any influence over this. It is dishonest of Amaral and his supporters to pretend otherwise.

You are quite correct, Victoria.

No Social Services involved, no Guardian ad Litem involved either. 

[Montclair]

I think davel has given the benefit of the doubt to the claims on some blogs that the ward of court status has even been substantively raised in the libel trial. I don't believe it has been and I don't trust the people behind the blogs in question to provide an accurate (or honest) account of what is happening.

It makes no sense for the ward of court issue to be raised this late in proceedings, and in any case, there is simply no argument to make. The McCanns still have parental responsibility in respect of their daughter. It is now shared with the court, but they are not automatically barred from taking any action in her name. The only way they can be barred from doing so is if the High Court specifically seeks to prevent them from doing so by way of injunction. Neither Amaral, nor anyone else, has any influence over this. It is dishonest of Amaral and his supporters to pretend otherwise.

The matter of Madeleine being a WOC had been brought up earlier but only later did the judge ask Gonçalo Amaral's lawyer to obtain the relevant documents. He was able to obtain them and they confirm that she is indeed a WOC. In her ruling she stated that if the McCanns are unable to show that they had authorisation from the court to represent their daughter, she would then be forced to acquit all defendents with regard to the claim made in Madeleine's name. Now the ball is the McCanns' court and they were given 30 days from the date of the last hearing to present this proof.