Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270344 times)

0 Members and 6 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #405 on: February 02, 2017, 03:55:04 PM »
I would have assumed that the interest on the money that Amaral accrued from the lucrative vehicle of Madeleine McCann's case both as an author and pundit, will be sitting safely in the bank alongside the capital and therefore will not feature.

Following the first judgement the McCanns were awarded Euro 500k plus Euro 106k interest, both due from Amaral, according to the UK press. Why would it not work the other way?
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #406 on: February 02, 2017, 03:59:18 PM »
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.

Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?

Will there be a judgement if it was thrown out? The Appeal Court judgement will become the final one then, won't it?
That's what happened when the Supreme Court threw their last appeal out.
Read and abide by the forum rules.
Result = happy posting.
Ignore and break the rules
Result = edits, deletions and unhappiness
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?board=2.0

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #407 on: February 02, 2017, 04:05:52 PM »
Will there be a judgement if it was thrown out? The Appeal Court judgement will become the final one then, won't it?
That's what happened when the Supreme Court threw their last appeal out.

I should have said what was decided in the Appeal Court.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #408 on: February 02, 2017, 04:11:03 PM »
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.

Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?

Depends on the costs involved
May choose not to use the fund
Depends how much they have
May declare bankruptcy
Wait one year then write million pound book
As I said it will be interesting what happens next
« Last Edit: February 02, 2017, 04:21:17 PM by davel »

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #409 on: February 02, 2017, 04:25:30 PM »
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.

Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?

Don't know if it will be any clearer when the judgement is published, I'm guessing the mechanics of that will be worked out elsewhere over a period.
Also, I'm none too sure exactly what will be laid out in the judgement despite leaks.  Just need to be patient and wait till later today? or tomorrow.

If Madeleine's fund is not available to help them out no doubt, being intelligent people, they will have had a contingency plan in place for some time.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline misty

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #410 on: February 02, 2017, 04:45:46 PM »
BBC Series 3 of "The Missing" would be a Blockbuster based on Madeleine's story, or a movie.

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #411 on: February 02, 2017, 04:46:35 PM »
Depends on the costs involved
May choose not to use the fund
Depends how much they have
May declare bankruptcy
Wait one year then write million pound book
As I said it will be interesting what happens next

As it will be the State of Portugal that the money would be owed to, do you think that an option they would wish to make?
Could non-payment  lead to them being refused entry to the country?
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #412 on: February 02, 2017, 04:49:09 PM »
As it will be the State of Portugal that the money would be owed to, do you think that an option they would wish to make?
Could non-payment  lead to them being refused entry to the country?

Still a civil debt
Thousands go bankrupt owing the state tax
Still just speculation
If it's reasonable and they can pay it they will

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #413 on: February 02, 2017, 04:52:40 PM »
Depends on the costs involved
May choose not to use the fund
Depends how much they have
May declare bankruptcy
Wait one year then write million pound book
As I said it will be interesting what happens next

Million Pound book ?

IMHO.

No chance at all.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #414 on: February 02, 2017, 04:55:13 PM »
No doubt we will know more when the entire judgement is published along with who pays what.

Likewise, what happens if they are not entitled to use the fund ?

If "The Fund" issued the writ,i.e it's name is on the writ not if it typed it up put it in an envelope and stuck it in a pillar box, then "The Fund" pays. Otherwise as directors the McCanns acn take the money out of the fund and use it either as a directors loan which has to  be paid back or as income which then attracts the attention of The Revenuers.
The copy of the relevant bits of the writ from The Sun and bandied about on here showed the McCanns names.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Brietta

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #415 on: February 02, 2017, 04:56:04 PM »
BBC Series 3 of "The Missing" would be a Blockbuster based on Madeleine's story, or a movie.

Agreed ... although bearing in mind that Kate is a best selling author who possibly keeps a journal ... I was thinking more along the lines of a book aimed at the Portuguese market ... along the lines of utilising the device of 'fictional detectives'.
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

stephen25000

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #416 on: February 02, 2017, 04:57:04 PM »
If "The Fund" issued the writ,i.e it's name is on the writ not if it typed it up put it in an envelope and stuck it in a pillar box, then "The Fund" pays. Otherwise as directors the McCanns acn take the money out of the fund and use it either as a directors loan which has to  be paid back or as income which then attracts the attention of The Revenuers.
The copy of the relevant bits of the writ from The Sun and bandied about on here showed the McCanns names.

Thanks for that.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #417 on: February 02, 2017, 05:04:10 PM »
If "The Fund" issued the writ,i.e it's name is on the writ not if it typed it up put it in an envelope and stuck it in a pillar box, then "The Fund" pays. Otherwise as directors the McCanns acn take the money out of the fund and use it either as a directors loan which has to  be paid back or as income which then attracts the attention of The Revenuers.
The copy of the relevant bits of the writ from The Sun and bandied about on here showed the McCanns names.

I asked this question yesterday
Gunit said it was the McCanns personally

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #418 on: February 02, 2017, 05:09:38 PM »
I asked this question yesterday
Gunit said it was the McCanns personally

That's what I said if you read it properly.
I also posted on the topic at least twice previously since the Appeal Court Ruling drawing attention to the tax liablity.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #419 on: February 02, 2017, 05:12:50 PM »
No doubt they will need to be consulting with more than just their lawyers.
I believe everything. And l believe nothing.
I suspect everyone. And l suspect no one.
I gather the facts, examine the clues... and before   you know it, the case is solved!"

Or maybe not -

OG have been pushed out by the Germans who have reserved all the deck chairs for the foreseeable future