Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.

[Brietta]

It was decided in 2007 that the money donated by members of the public to Madeleine's fund would not be diverted to pay for legal expenses incurred ... for example, paying for independent DNA testing of the hire vehicle.

Which extraordinarily had been returned to their possession!

It is known that money had largely dried up making it was to write a book.  The proceeds from the sale of which were placed directly into Madeleine's fund to join the money awarded from the press libels against the Tapas 7 and the McCanns.  Fortunately the book was a best seller and raised enough to keep the fund afloat.
Therefore there is no question of any money raised from public subscription being used to pay legal fees.

Quote
They returned to their home in Rothley in Leicestershire at the weekend and are currently waiting for a judge to decide if they face charges.

It is understood the couple are planning their own forensic tests amid suspicion about claims made by detectives in interviews with Kate McCann.

The McCanns appointed lawyers in Portugal and Britain after being named as formal suspects - but they will not be paid out of money donated by well-wishers.

A statement made by Esther McVey from the board of Madeleine's Fund said payment of legal defence costs would be legally permissible so long as they were repaid in the event of a guilty conviction.

However, she said the fund's directors recognised the spirit in which the generous donations were given and decided not to pay for the McCanns' legal costs.

"We stress that Gerry and Kate have not asked for these costs to be paid," she said.

So far donations totalling £1,036,104.17 have been received for Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, according to the official campaign website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992372.stm

[carlymichelle]

It was decided in 2007 that the money donated by members of the public to Madeleine's fund would not be diverted to pay for legal expenses incurred ... for example, paying for independent DNA testing of the hire vehicle.

Which extraordinarily had been returned to their possession!

It is known that money had largely dried up making it was to write a book.  The proceeds from the sale of which were placed directly into Madeleine's fund to join the money awarded from the press libels against the Tapas 7 and the McCanns.  Fortunately the book was a best seller and raised enough to keep the fund afloat.
Therefore there is no question of any money raised from public subscription being used to pay legal fees.

Quote
They returned to their home in Rothley in Leicestershire at the weekend and are currently waiting for a judge to decide if they face charges.

It is understood the couple are planning their own forensic tests amid suspicion about claims made by detectives in interviews with Kate McCann.

The McCanns appointed lawyers in Portugal and Britain after being named as formal suspects - but they will not be paid out of money donated by well-wishers.

A statement made by Esther McVey from the board of Madeleine's Fund said payment of legal defence costs would be legally permissible so long as they were repaid in the event of a guilty conviction.

However, she said the fund's directors recognised the spirit in which the generous donations were given and decided not to pay for the McCanns' legal costs.

"We stress that Gerry and Kate have not asked for these costs to be paid," she said.

So far donations totalling £1,036,104.17 have been received for Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, according to the official campaign website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992372.stm

that  was  10 years ago it has no meaning  now

[G-Unit]

It was decided in 2007 that the money donated by members of the public to Madeleine's fund would not be diverted to pay for legal expenses incurred ... for example, paying for independent DNA testing of the hire vehicle.

Which extraordinarily had been returned to their possession!

It is known that money had largely dried up making it was to write a book.  The proceeds from the sale of which were placed directly into Madeleine's fund to join the money awarded from the press libels against the Tapas 7 and the McCanns.  Fortunately the book was a best seller and raised enough to keep the fund afloat.
Therefore there is no question of any money raised from public subscription being used to pay legal fees.

Quote
They returned to their home in Rothley in Leicestershire at the weekend and are currently waiting for a judge to decide if they face charges.

It is understood the couple are planning their own forensic tests amid suspicion about claims made by detectives in interviews with Kate McCann.

The McCanns appointed lawyers in Portugal and Britain after being named as formal suspects - but they will not be paid out of money donated by well-wishers.

A statement made by Esther McVey from the board of Madeleine's Fund said payment of legal defence costs would be legally permissible so long as they were repaid in the event of a guilty conviction.

However, she said the fund's directors recognised the spirit in which the generous donations were given and decided not to pay for the McCanns' legal costs.

"We stress that Gerry and Kate have not asked for these costs to be paid," she said.

So far donations totalling £1,036,104.17 have been received for Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned, according to the official campaign website.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6992372.stm

Once money has been donated to a company it belongs to the company. The board of directors are in charge of the company's funds and decide how to spend them. There are six directors and they may decide to pay the costs of the McCann's failed litigation. If they do, it will be up to them, if challenged,  to explain how that fits with their duty, as directors, to promote the long-term success of the company.

At Y/e March 2016 the restricted funds stood at £ 547, 236. If the directors use these funds to pay the McCann's court costs that will not, in my opinion, be the purpose for which they were donated. In theory therefore the donor (Kate McCann) could ask for her donation to be repaid to her. As she and her husband would benefit from the unauthorised expenditure she may, of course, decide not to do that.

[Mr Gray]

Once money has been donated to a company it belongs to the company. The board of directors are in charge of the company's funds and decide how to spend them. There are six directors and they may decide to pay the costs of the McCann's failed litigation. If they do, it will be up to them, if challenged,  to explain how that fits with their duty, as directors, to promote the long-term success of the company.

At Y/e March 2016 the restricted funds stood at £ 547, 236. If the directors use these funds to pay the McCann's court costs that will not, in my opinion, be the purpose for which they were donated. In theory therefore the donor (Kate McCann) could ask for her donation to be repaid to her. As she and her husband would benefit from the unauthorised expenditure she may, of course, decide not to do that.

It will depend on how much the costs are and how much the McCanns have
It will depend on whether amaral can and wants to sue them
They do not have to involve the fund if they do not wish to
Alice has now mentioned bankruptcy which I first raised
The McCanns will not be destitute and have the ability to earn a fortune if they wish
Once OG is finished they can say a lot more about what has happened

[Mr Gray]

All this talk of directors loans is unimportant
It's just another way of taking money out of the company
It may well be the McCanns don't want to involve the company

[stephen25000]

Can't you see that the McCanns have already won.

After a long haul their efforts ... and theirs alone ... have achieved the feat of getting the Policia Judicaria and the Met to investigate ~ reopen Madeleine's case ~ and conduct an intensive search for her.

The world has watched that happen and note has been taken of the implications of that.

I would imagine that the verdict of the supreme court might be puzzling to people who are living in the present and not in the past.
My opinion of the Portuguese judgement couldn't be lower but that is of no import, the danger for Portugal may be that world opinion may also reflect that by what if nothing else is a monumental PR mess.

There is indeed much more than the money awarded to the defendant by the court to be considered here.

Let's get a few facts straight.

The Mccann's lost the other day, big time.

For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.

The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.

So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.

[Mr Gray]

Whilst OG is still running and the Portuguese investigation is still open then the McCanns have to be careful what they say
Once the Portuguese investigation is closed it might be different
A picture of the bruised Leonora Cipriano on the front page of the papers might be a good start

[Mr Gray]

Let's get a few facts straight.

The Mccann's lost the other day, big time.

For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.

The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.

So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.

The McCanns will come back stronger imo
Wait and see

[Eleanor]

Let's stop the sniping now, if you please.  This is not a request.

[Brietta]

that  was  10 years ago it has no meaning  now

What it means is that no money donated by members of the public has been used to pay legal fees. 
Which is one of the oft times 'questionings' people ponder and post about ... even on this thread.

[G-Unit]

It will depend on how much the costs are and how much the McCanns have
It will depend on whether amaral can and wants to sue them
They do not have to involve the fund if they do not wish to
Alice has now mentioned bankruptcy which I first raised
The McCanns will not be destitute and have the ability to earn a fortune if they wish
Once OG is finished they can say a lot more about what has happened

Of course we don't know what the McCanns have, but sacking Mitchell was said to be a money saving exercise by the company in expectation of losing this case. The inference has always been that they would turn to the Fund to bail them out.

If they go bankrupt they will have to resign as directors of the company. You think they could earn a fortune, but that's just speculation. Raising money to search for a lost daughter is one thing. Raising money to pay Portuguese court costs is another.

I don't know what you think they could add to what they have already said.

[Mr Gray]

Of course we don't know what the McCanns have, but sacking Mitchell was said to be a money saving exercise by the company in expectation of losing this case. The inference has always been that they would turn to the Fund to bail them out.

If they go bankrupt they will have to resign as directors of the company. You think they could earn a fortune, but that's just speculation. Raising money to search for a lost daughter is one thing. Raising money to pay Portuguese court costs is another.

I don't know what you think they could add to what they have already said.

Sorry to disappoint you but the McCann earning power is phenomenal
That is a fact

[carlymichelle]

Let's get a few facts straight.

The Mccann's lost the other day, big time.

For several years, they asked for a review of the case, and access to the files.

The time the case was re-opened, occurred after Rebekah Brooks in the Sun asked David Cameron to do so. The Sun of course already had a deal with the Mccann's as regards serialization rights, which might be termed a conflict of interest.

Meanwhile, throughout almost 10 years, the case has had extensive publicity worldwide, and not a trace of Madeleine has emerged, let alone how she disappeared from the apartment.

So, I would like to know, exactly what kind of victory is that.

  well said

[stephen25000]

well said

Thanks Carly.

[G-Unit]

What it means is that no money donated by members of the public has been used to pay legal fees. 
Which is one of the oft times 'questionings' people ponder and post about ... even on this thread.

The point is not where the money came from, the point is who the money belongs to. It belongs to Madeleine's Fund and the objects of the company are;

To secure the safe return to her family of Madeleine McCann who was abducted in Praia da Luz, Portugal on Thursday 3rd May 2007;
To procure that Madeleine's abduction is thoroughly investigated and that her abductors, as well as those who played or play any part in assisting them, are identified and brought to justice

The decision the directors may have to make is whether paying Portuguese court costs owed by the McCanns can be said to fulfil the company's objects.