Author Topic: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.  (Read 270088 times)

0 Members and 8 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #930 on: February 06, 2017, 06:40:26 PM »
If it is an enforced bankruptcy he has ultimate power.......... and  the court can enforce the bankruptcy if their bill is not paid and see G-Units earlier post about transfer of debt.

any debtor can enfotce bankruptcy

Offline faithlilly

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #931 on: February 06, 2017, 06:40:38 PM »
Is it not?  I thought the McCanns were going to be bankrupted by Amaral which puts potentially puts their home at stake, yah?

Are they? You seem to know more than me Alfie.
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?

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #932 on: February 06, 2017, 06:41:17 PM »
He has the power to take your goods and sell them.

Only certain of goods, like luxury items.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #933 on: February 06, 2017, 06:46:30 PM »
He has the power to take your goods and sell them.

not if you declare bankruptcy

Offline Alice Purjorick

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #934 on: February 06, 2017, 06:50:31 PM »
any debtor can enfotce bankruptcy

Did I say or imply they couldn't?
Two sorts of bankruptcy. Voluntary and enforced. Different rules.
"Navigating the difference between weird but normal grief and truly suspicious behaviour is the key for any detective worth his salt.". ….Sarah Bailey

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #935 on: February 06, 2017, 06:54:15 PM »
Only certain of goods, like luxury items.

Is that a comfort, being left with just the necessities?
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 Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #936 on: February 06, 2017, 07:00:01 PM »
Is that a comfort, being left with just the necessities?

I cant see any way that the mccanns will have gooods removed from their house....the idea is rather silly

Offline Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #937 on: February 06, 2017, 07:07:43 PM »
I cant see any way that the mccanns will have gooods removed from their house....the idea is rather silly

Wouldn't happen here, so hopefully not in England.  Used to be called warrant sales here but  these were abolished a long time ago, as far as I know.
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline Eleanor

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #938 on: February 06, 2017, 07:10:14 PM »
Is that a comfort, being left with just the necessities?

I wouldn't know.  I only own necessities.  And I don't think The McCanns have much else.


Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #940 on: February 06, 2017, 08:35:50 PM »
I cant see any way that the mccanns will have gooods removed from their house....the idea is rather silly

I told you the way. The fund declines to pay their debts. They don't have enough to pay. The Portuguese courts pass the debts to the English High Court to collect. The High Court Enforcement Officers arrive at their house and they can't pay. Goods are removed. Simple.

I don't think it will happen because I think the fund will cough up, but it is certainly not silly, it's how debts are pursued and collected by the High Court.
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 Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #941 on: February 06, 2017, 08:41:19 PM »
I told you the way. The fund declines to pay their debts. They don't have enough to pay. The Portuguese courts pass the debts to the English High Court to collect. The High Court Enforcement Officers arrive at their house and they can't pay. Goods are removed. Simple.

I don't think it will happen because I think the fund will cough up, but it is certainly not silly, it's how debts are pursued and collected by the High Court.

All goods, beds, cooking implements etc.?
 Seems Draconian. As I said in an earlier post this cannot happen here in Scotland
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline G-Unit

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #942 on: February 06, 2017, 08:43:18 PM »
I wouldn't know.  I only own necessities.  And I don't think The McCanns have much else.

Why? They're not poor, are they?
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 Erngath

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #943 on: February 06, 2017, 08:49:27 PM »
Why? They're not poor, are they?
No they are not poor.
So what goods can be seized. Here only cars if they are fully owned but not beds or furniture or clothes or cooking facilities or cooking implements.
I'm not too sure of what can be seized here as the practice seems to be so rare.
Deal with the failings of others as gently as with your own.

Offline Mr Gray

Re: Supreme Court rules against the McCanns in damages case.
« Reply #944 on: February 06, 2017, 08:52:03 PM »
I told you the way. The fund declines to pay their debts. They don't have enough to pay. The Portuguese courts pass the debts to the English High Court to collect. The High Court Enforcement Officers arrive at their house and they can't pay. Goods are removed. Simple.

I don't think it will happen because I think the fund will cough up, but it is certainly not silly, it's how debts are pursued and collected by the High Court.


Thats not how it works.......if you cant pay a debt you reach an arrangement with your creditors for  an amount you can afford to make monthly.

the court will not authorise enforcement unless the debtors have avoided co operation