Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 269991 times)

0 Members and 3 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #900 on: February 06, 2017, 02:11:22 PM »
That is assuming there are any assets

There will need to be sound reasons for disposing of substantial assets in any way shape or form post filing the writ.
"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 #901 on: February 06, 2017, 02:11:44 PM »
How does a Portuguese restraint order work in the UK then?

Probably similar to how an English one would work in UK, but will take 10 times longer.
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 Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #902 on: February 06, 2017, 02:13:32 PM »
How does a Portuguese restraint order work in the UK then?

A restraint order is made against the person regardless of where they reside.  Any breach becomes a contempt of court and is liable to criminal proceedings.

Whether this happens is entirely at Amaral's discretion now that he holds all the cards. 
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 02:19:11 PM by Angelo222 »
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #903 on: February 06, 2017, 02:15:03 PM »
There will need to be sound reasons for disposing of substantial assets in any way shape or form post filing the writ.

Any sleight of hand to protect assets might have been done long ago. I suppose they could freeze the Professor's salary and any other sources of income.
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 Angelo222

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #904 on: February 06, 2017, 02:16:00 PM »
If I remember correctly, the Judge removed Maddie from the list of plaintiffs?

That's correct, the original judgement was on behalf of the parents and the twins.
De troothe has the annoying habit of coming to the surface just when you least expect it!!

Je ne regrette rien!!

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #905 on: February 06, 2017, 02:23:43 PM »
Any sleight of hand to protect assets might have been done long ago. I suppose they could freeze the Professor's salary and any other sources of income.

Possibly just in the nick of too late as the idea of losing seems not to have been on the radar judging by the incandescance.
I doubt playing a shell game with assets not long before embarking on a flaky damages claim would be smiled upon by the OR man were he to be involved.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #906 on: February 06, 2017, 02:29:42 PM »
Any sleight of hand to protect assets might have been done long ago. I suppose they could freeze the Professor's salary and any other sources of income.

Not if they declared bankruptcy
There are too many unknowns at the moment to reach any real conclusions

In fact they couldn't freeze is salary in any situation

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #907 on: February 06, 2017, 02:37:59 PM »
That's correct, the original judgement was on behalf of the parents and the twins.

Do you mean the judgement of the lower court? The claims of all three children were dismissed, but they were included in the order yo pay costs;

IV. fully dismiss the requests, made in the same action, by the claimants  MADELEINE MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN and  AMELIE EVE MCCANN against the defendant  GONCALO AMARAL and of those claims acquit the defendant.

X. Condemn the claimants KATE MARIE HEALY MCCANN, GERALD PATRICK MCCANN, MADELEINE BETH MCCANN, SEAN MICHAEL MCCANN e AMELIE EVE MCCANN and the defendant  GONCALO AMARAL to pay the expenses of the main action in the proportion of 58.30% for the former and 41.70% for the second, in accordance with paragraph 1 of the article 527 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Reply #10 on: May 10, 2015, 09:15:06 PM »
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6307.0
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 faithlilly

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #908 on: February 06, 2017, 03:00:32 PM »
Their own home is at stake isn't it?

Is it? Cite?
Brietta posted on 10/04/2022 “But whether or not that is the reason behind the delay I am certain that Brueckner's trial is going to take place.”

Let’s count the months, shall we?

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #909 on: February 06, 2017, 03:08:31 PM »
Is it? Cite?
Is it not?  I thought the McCanns were going to be bankrupted by Amaral which puts potentially puts their home at stake, yah?

Offline jassi

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #910 on: February 06, 2017, 03:15:55 PM »
In the first instance they are required to pay court cost and legal fees resulting from their recent unsuccessful foray into litigation.

Nothing that Amaral has so far initiated  places them at  risk of bankruptcy
« Last Edit: February 06, 2017, 03:19:29 PM by jassi »
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 G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #911 on: February 06, 2017, 03:17:54 PM »
All the Portuguese Court has to do in the case of non-payment is to register the debt by the appropriate method with the High Court in England. It is then collected as if it was a domestic debt.
http://www.loble.co.uk/enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.html
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

Alfie

  • Guest
Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #912 on: February 06, 2017, 03:22:15 PM »
All the Portuguese Court has to do in the case of non-payment is to register the debt by the appropriate method with the High Court in England. It is then collected as if it was a domestic debt.
http://www.loble.co.uk/enforcement_of_foreign_judgments.html
The question concerned the enforcement of Angelo's so-called "restraining" order to freeze all their assets.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #913 on: February 06, 2017, 04:04:04 PM »
A restraint order is made against the person regardless of where they reside.  Any breach becomes a contempt of court and is liable to criminal proceedings.

Whether this happens is entirely at Amaral's discretion now that he holds all the cards.

It will depend on the ability to pay
There are a lot of posts here from posters thinking they understand the situation I suspect it's much more complex
The UK government seem to find it impossible to recover motoring fines from foreign drivers so I don't think it's quite as simple as some think

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #914 on: February 06, 2017, 04:05:16 PM »
Not if they declared bankruptcy
There are too many unknowns at the moment to reach any real conclusions

In fact they couldn't freeze is salary in any situation

You seem obsessed with bankruptcy. Your house can certainly be sold under certain conditions. Anyone contemplating it as a solution to their debt problems needs to think carefully.
https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/debt-and-money/debt-solutions/bankruptcy-2/is-bankruptcy-right-for-you/

If the debt was passed to the English High Court I assume they could make an attachment of earnings order just like any court if required.
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