Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Robittybob1]

"Madeleine's parents could now lodge an appeal to the highest court in the land, the European Court of Human Rights.

But a source close to the exasperated couple said: "I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11792543

Fight on!

[jassi]

"Madeleine's parents could now lodge an appeal to the highest court in the land, the European Court of Human Rights.

But a source close to the exasperated couple said: "I think the fight is finally over. They want to concentrate on finding Madeleine and don't think they have the time or energy to lodge yet another appeal."
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11792543

Fight on!

What for?  Their somewhat dubious reputation? They would be taking on the State of Portugal, not Amaral.

[Mr Gray]

Err yes; that's what supreme courts do. Now expand that to fit in with your aassertion.

the fact the supreme court interpreted the law means its open to interpretation.....

[G-Unit]

Does anyone know if it was the McCanns personally who issued the writ or was it the fund...which is  limited company....on their behalf

I'm very surprised you don't know. It was the McCanns but the Fund paid. No doubt the directors will be able to justify spending loads of money on the McCann's failed litigation.

[Mr Gray]

What for?  Their somewhat dubious reputation? They would be taking on the State of Portugal, not Amaral.

their somewhat dubious reputation vs the state of portugals dubious representation in this case

[Alfie]

Amaral won't sue, he's the better person innit.  Not vengeful, not money-grabbing, not foolhardy, so no need for the McCanns to worry on that score.

[jassi]

I'm very surprised you don't know. It was the McCanns but the Fund paid. No doubt the directors will be able to justify spending loads of money on the McCann's failed litigation.

Are there now any directors other than McCanns.

[Mr Gray]

I'm very surprised you don't know. It was the McCanns but the Fund paid. No doubt the directors will be able to justify spending loads of money on the McCann's failed litigation.

Im just checking as thats what I thought the situation was.... under the loose terms the directors can justify paying for the litigation but they can then decide if they wish to pay all the legal costs....if they don't  then we cannot be sure the McCanns have the funds to pay



I think there could be some imteresting times ahead

[stephen25000]

their somewhat dubious reputation vs the state of portugals dubious representation in this case

If the Mccann's are stupid enough to do that, they deserve everything they will get.

Add to that , the atmosphere created by brexit.

NO CHANCE.

[Mr Gray]

If the Mccann's are stupid enough to do that, they deserve everything they will get.

Add to that , the atmosphere created by brexit.

NO CHANCE.

people do it and win


so you are saying that the ECHR could be influenced in their INTERPRETATION of the law due to the nationality of the plaintifs...if they could then the supreme court may well have been too....thank you for supporting my assertion

[Alice Purjorick]

the fact the supreme court interpreted the law means its open to interpretation.....

Of course it is in its widest sense but not by any authority that has the power to overrule the current decision.
The ECJ only deals with European Union Law and the ECHR has no authority to overturn the Portuguese Court's decision.

So your interpretation is the appeal court  f****ed it up but the Supreme Courts interpretation is they didn't f**k it up. Guess who has the most rings up their sleeve.

[Mr Gray]

Of course it is in its widest sense but not by any authority that has the power to overrule the current decision.
The ECJ only deals with European Union Law and the ECHR has no authority to overturn the Portuguese Court's decision.

So your interpretation is the appeal court  f****ed it up but the Supreme Courts interpretation is they didn't f**k it up. Guess who has the most rings up their sleeve.

you know...that I know all of that......no one messed anything up...each court simply gave their opinion and the one taht counts is the Supreme Court.....the verdict is absed on their interpretation of the law which may have been influenced by their opinion of the appellants

[stephen25000]

people do it and win


so you are saying that the ECHR could be influenced in their INTERPRETATION of the law due to the nationality of the plaintifs...if they could then the supreme court may well have been too....thank you for supporting my assertion

The Portuguese Appeal Court and Supreme Court acted on Law, as you find out shortly.

[G-Unit]

the fact the supreme court interpreted the law means its open to interpretation.....

The Supreme Court said 'Negada a Revista', which means the application to appeal was either denied or rejected, I'm not sure which. That, to me, means the Supreme Court were satisfied with the interpretation of the Appeal Court judges.

[Mr Gray]

The Portuguese Appeal Court and Supreme Court acted on Law, as you find out shortly.

they acted on their interpretation of the law