UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: John on July 12, 2018, 08:51:50 AM
-
A lot of confusion exists as to whether lawyers acting for the McCanns in their action against the British media for libel were undertaken on a Pro bono or Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA) basis.
Pro bono is shortened from the Latin term “pro bono publico”, meaning “for the public good.” It generally involves lawyers and law students giving up their time on a voluntary basis for people who need legal assistance, but aren’t in a position to get the necessary support. The motivation behind pro bono work is to benefit society as opposed to making money. Pro bono work often refers to legal services offered without taking a fee.
On the other hand, legal services undertaken under CFA consist of an agreement whereby the solicitor and the client can agree to share the risk of the litigation by coming to a financial arrangement whereby part or sometimes all of the solicitors' fees will only be payable by the client in the event of success. Conditional Fee Agreements is a legal funding arrangement where you only pay for your lawyers work on the condition that your case is won and you receive compensation. So if your claim is unsuccessful you're not left with a bill for legal work.
Depending on the type of case, some legal costs and expenses can be recovered from the losing party at the end of the claim. The Law was changed in relation to expenses in 2013 so currently expenses have to be paid out of the damages agreed.
Prior to officially instructing your lawyer, the details of your Conditional Fee Agreement will be clearly outlined. It is at this stage where a 'success fee' percentage is also agreed upon.
432
-
3.7 Pro bono advice services Pro bono advice is where a solicitor or barrister works on your legal problem free of charge. The law works scheme can arrange free initial advice on various areas of social welfare law including employment law,housing matters, consumer disputes, debt, and welfare benefits. Their clinics are for people who are not eligible for legal aid but cannot afford to pay for a lawyer
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs43_getting_legal_advice_fcs.pdf
Individual Pro Bono Instructions
We will always aim to help, when possible, but unfortunately are not able to take on all the requests we receive for pro bono work.
Broadly speaking, the criteria we use to determine whether we can offer pro bono legal advice include:
Ability to fund by the client – many of our clients are charities and social enterprises undertaking important and worthwhile work. Our focus for pro bono work is on those who simply cannot afford to pay for legal advice.
Availability of alternative funding – in some matters it may be more appropriate to work under a conditional fee or “no win-no fee” arrangement.
https://www.bwbllp.com/pro-bono
-
3.7 Pro bono advice services Pro bono advice is where a solicitor or barrister works on your legalproblem free of charge. The LawWorks scheme can arrange free initialadvice on various areas of social welfare law including employment law,housing matters, consumer disputes, debt, and welfare benefits. Theirclinics are for people who are not eligible for legal aid but cannot affordto pay for a lawyer
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs43_getting_legal_advice_fcs.pdf
Individual Pro Bono Instructions
We will always aim to help, when possible, but unfortunately are not able to take on all the requests we receive for pro bono work.
Broadly speaking, the criteria we use to determine whether we can offer pro bono legal advice include:
Ability to fund by the client – many of our clients are charities and social enterprises undertaking important and worthwhile work. Our focus for pro bono work is on those who simply cannot afford to pay for legal advice.
Availability of alternative funding – in some matters it may be more appropriate to work under a conditional fee or “no win-no fee” arrangement.
https://www.bwbllp.com/pro-bono
im sure you are wrong...CR worked pro bono for the mccanns...give me a reason why they would not claim their charges which they were entitled to from the newspapers who agreed to settle
-
3.7 Pro bono advice services Pro bono advice is where a solicitor or barrister works on your legalproblem free of charge. The LawWorks scheme can arrange free initialadvice on various areas of social welfare law including employment law,housing matters, consumer disputes, debt, and welfare benefits. Theirclinics are for people who are not eligible for legal aid but cannot affordto pay for a lawyer
https://www.ageuk.org.uk/globalassets/age-uk/documents/factsheets/fs43_getting_legal_advice_fcs.pdf
Individual Pro Bono Instructions
We will always aim to help, when possible, but unfortunately are not able to take on all the requests we receive for pro bono work.
Broadly speaking, the criteria we use to determine whether we can offer pro bono legal advice include:
Ability to fund by the client – many of our clients are charities and social enterprises undertaking important and worthwhile work. Our focus for pro bono work is on those who simply cannot afford to pay for legal advice.
Availability of alternative funding – in some matters it may be more appropriate to work under a conditional fee or “no win-no fee” arrangement.
https://www.bwbllp.com/pro-bono
See what I mean Davel?
this is all about pro bono legal ADVICE...thats all
-
im sure you are wrong...CR worked pro bono for the mccanns...give me a reason why they would not claim their charges which they were entitled to from the newspapers who agreed to settle
No Davel CR worked on a Conditional Fee Arrangement. That is totally different. With a CFA the winning sides legal fees will be paid by the loser after a court case. Pro Bono = for nothing.
I have provided cites regarding Pro Bono. Can you provide a cite which showed CR worked "pro bono" for the McCanns please. I believe it was a CFA.
Here's another cite
Pro bono publico (English: for the public good; usually shortened to pro bono) is a Latin phrase for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment. Unlike traditional volunteerism, it is service that uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.
Wikipedia this time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
-
Try this one then Davel.
The Bar Pro Bono Unit is a charity which helps to find pro bono (free) legal assistance from volunteer barristers.
They can assist with:
Advice, representation and help at mediation
Cases in all legal areas
Cases where proceedings have not yet been started, and
Cases in all tribunals and courts in England and Wales.
Pro bono assistance is only available to those who cannot afford to pay and who cannot obtain public funding (Legal Aid).
https://www.barcouncil.org.uk/using-a-barrister/pro-bono-assistance/
-
Davel.
Thought I'd give you your cite (well sortof).
You were incorrect. It was a Conditional Fee Arrangment otherwise known as No Win No Fee. Not Pro Bono. It is on CR's own website.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
And Gerry himself
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
Sort of a bogof deal. Two cites for the price of one.
-
Davel.
Thought I'd give you your cite (well sortof).
You were incorrect. It was a Conditional Fee Arrangment otherwise known as No Win No Fee. Not Pro Bono. It is on CR's own website.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
And Gerry himself
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
Sort of a bogof deal. Two cites for the price of one.
As I have already said it doesn't matter... The mccanns could not have got court...it was in the lawyers hands
-
As I have already said it doesn't matter... The mccanns could not have got court...it was in the lawyers hands
The McCanns could have gone to court. They were instructing the solicitors not the other way around. Admittedly if the solicitors thought there was little chance of winning and it was a CFA then they could refuse to go ahead but then they would be unlikely to have taken the case in the first place.
Can I have a cite for "the mccanns could not have gone to court" please.
-
The McCanns could have gone to court. They were instructing the solicitors not the other way around. Admittedly if the solicitors thought there was little chance of winning and it was a CFA then they could refuse to go ahead but then they would be unlikely to have taken the case in the first place.
Can I have a cite for "the mccanns could not have gone to court" please.
I've already explained it.. Look back at the posts...
-
Once the papers had agreed to settle in reality the mccanns could not have taken them to court for reasons I have already explained.
-
Once the papers had agreed to settle in reality the mccanns could not have taken them to court for reasons I have already explained.
Could you show me where the McCanns used CR on a pro bono basis though? I gather also there were several papers that were sued by the couple were there reasons for all of them as to why the pair couldn't take them to court too?
Please, can you give me a cite where the McCanns used CR on a pro bono basis. I gather cites are required when statements are made. I have shown you mine, so show me yours.
-
Could you show me where the McCanns used CR on a pro bono basis though? I gather also there were several papers that were sued by the couple were there reasons for all of them as to why the pair couldn't take them to court too?
Please, can you give me a cite where the McCanns used CR on a pro bono basis. I gather cites are required when statements are made. I have shown you mine, so show me yours.
Alice quoted opinion as fact and gave no cite... So let's start there first... CR acted on a no win no fee basis... That's pro bono
-
Alice quoted opinion as fact and gave no cite... So let's start there first... CR acted on a no win no fee basis... That's pro bono
No it isn't Davel. = no win there is no fee. You win there is a fee but it will be mitigated by the losing party paying at least some if not all of the costs.
Pro bono = no fee fullstop except occasionally lawyers working pro bono will accept some of the legal fees to be paid but they will go to a charity for paying expenses for lawyers doing pro bono work. I don't think CR are a charity do you?
Cite that pro bono = CFA /NWNF then please Davel. You haven't stated that the McCanns using CR on pro bono was an "opinion" you have stated it several times as though it was a fact. There fore cite please.
-
so here is the post...the mccanns may well have wished to put it before a judge...we do not know...alice is posting opinion as fact...
What has Alice got to do with our conversation. Davel, you were posting opinion (incorrect as it turns out) as fact.
-
im sure you are wrong...CR worked pro bono for the mccanns...give me a reason why they would not claim their charges which they were entitled to from the newspapers who agreed to settle
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122164630/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald-Patrick-McCann.pdf
81.
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
-
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140122164630/http://www.levesoninquiry.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Witness-Statement-of-Gerald-Patrick-McCann.pdf
81.
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
So if you read the above you will see CR did not act on a CFA.. It wasn't necessarry... So it must have been pro bono
-
So if you read the above you will see CR did not act on a CFA.. It wasn't necessarry... So it must have been pro bono
It wasn’t necessary because the Express settled and that sum would have included the legal fees incurred.
-
Davel.
Thought I'd give you your cite (well sortof).
You were incorrect. It was a Conditional Fee Arrangment otherwise known as No Win No Fee. Not Pro Bono. It is on CR's own website.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/McCann-Press_Release-03102014.PDF
And Gerry himself
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
Sort of a bogof deal. Two cites for the price of one.
So there was no CFA ...it wasnt necessary...CR acted pro bono to the Mccanns but no doubt they collected fees from the newspapers
-
It is usual when suing when a CFA is in place for the litigants to have some kind of insurance to cover the legal costs if they lose. If the Express had not settled and the McCanns had lost the case this was possibly what would have paid CR. If the McCanns had lost with no insurance in place they would been lible for the legal costs themselves.
CR had agreed that they would act for the McCanns by way of a CFA so no matter what they would have been paid by one side or the other. As it happened the Express settled and paid the McCann’s legal costs. At no time where CR working for nothing because the felt sorry for the McCanns, believed their story etc, etc. It was a business agreement.
I believe CR were put on a retainer after that.
-
Davel. You stated that the work was pro-bono way back up this thread.
Please provide evidence the legal representatives took no payment by whatsoever means for the works carried out.
pro bo·no
/ˌprō ˈbônō/
adverb
1.
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client with a low income:
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
there was no CFA in place.....CR acted for the McCanns without charge....I think pro bono is a reasonable description
-
pro bo·no
/ˌprō ˈbônō/
adverb
1.
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client with a low income:
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
there was no CFA in place.....CR acted for the McCanns without charge....I think pro bono is a reasonable description
Were CR paid ?
-
It is usual when suing when a CFA is in place for the litigants to have some kind of insurance to cover the legal costs if they lose. If the Express had not settled and the McCanns had lost the case this was possibly what would have paid CR. If the McCanns had lost with no insurance in place they would been lible for the legal costs themselves.
CR had agreed that they would act for the McCanns by way of a CFA so no matter what they would have been paid by one side or the other. As it happened the Express settled and paid the McCann’s legal costs. At no time where CR working for nothing because the felt sorry for the McCanns, believed their story etc, etc. It was a business agreement.
I believe CR were put on a retainer after that.
Does " I believe" mean I know or I think or I presume or I assume?
-
Does " I believe" mean I know or I think or I presume or I assume?
It means I know. It was
From the Select Committee
‘Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.’
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id217.htm
-
Were CR paid ?
In the case in question they acted pro bono for the mccanns and recovered their fees from the ST.... As there was no CFA in place.
What is also true is that they only accept cases on a no win no fee basis where they have a very really chance if success
-
In the case in question they acted pro bono for the mccanns and recovered their fees from the ST.... As there was no CFA in place.
What is also true is that they only accept cases on a no win no fee basis where they have a very really chance if success
Didn’t you read my previous post ? CR were on a retainer so they were being paid by the McCanns or someone on behalf of the McCanns.
‘Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.’
As to the very real chance I absolutely agree. The case was a slam dunk as the headlines were so outrageous.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id217.htm
-
pro bo·no
/ˌprō ˈbônō/
adverb
1.
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client with a low income:
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
there was no CFA in place.....CR acted for the McCanns without charge....I think pro bono is a reasonable description
The Law Society does not concur with your assessment. Furthermore if you work out the contractual relationships your own argumnet becomes self defeating.
-
that was 8 years ago...do you have any evidence that the arrangement was continued
Let’s not stray off of the point Davel. You claimed that CR worked for the McCanns pro bono. I have proved that CR was paid by the Express when they settled out of court. Before that the McCanns via the fund, or the individuals picking up their lawyers tab, were paying CR a retainer. At no time did CR work pro bono and to claim they did shows your lack of understanding.
-
that was 8 years ago...do you have any evidence that the arrangement was continued
Do you have any evidence about pro bono when it commenced to when it was concluded.?
-
Surely Sadie that is what cites are for - to separate fact from fiction. Davel has yet to provide the requested cite despite being asked several times.
-
And yet Davel
Mr Jay
One point you make, these libel proceedings were brought with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is that correct?
Link in context Link
Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given -- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important. It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann
-
And yet Davel
Mr Jay
One point you make, these libel proceedings were brought with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is that correct?
Link in context Link
Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given -- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important. It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann
If you read what Gerry said...a CFA was an option...and they could not bring libel proceedings without one...but in the end they did not need to bring libel proceedingas the express capitulated...there was no CFA put in place...it really is quite clear
-
If you read what Gerry said...a CFA was an option...and they could not bring libel proceedings without one...but in the end they did not need to bring libel proceedingas the express capitulated...there was no CFA put in place...it really is quite clear
So you are calling Gerry a liar then when he said "I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place." then?
They had CFA in place Davel but didn't need to use it to its full extent as the media caved in prior to trial. That is my opinion anyway.
-
So you are calling Gerry a liar then when he said "I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place." then?
They had CFA in place Davel but didn't need to use it to its full extent as the media caved in prior to trial. That is my opinion anyway.
No I'm not calling Gerry a liar....you need to read his statement again
-
No I'm not calling Gerry a liar....you need to read his statement again
Which one Davel? I have one where he says they did use CFA and you have one where he says they didn't need to use a CFA. Both are direct quotes from Gerry so we are both correct it would seem.
Can we agree on that? Oh and do you have a cite for them using a pro bono agreement yet?
I don't want to argue with you but I do find it difficult to discuss things with you as you never back down even when wrong. I have already amended one post when I was incorrect and apologized to the poster involved, Sadie.
-
Which one Davel? I have one where he says they did use CFA and you have one where he says they didn't need to use a CFA. Both are direct quotes from Gerry so we are both correct it would seem.
Can we agree on that? Oh and do you have a cite for them using a pro bono agreement yet?
I don't want to argue with you but I do find it difficult to discuss things with you as you never back down even when wrong. I have already amended one post when I was incorrect and apologized to the poster involved, Sadie.
I'm not really interested in anymore discussion on the topic...it's of no real importance..
-
I'm not really interested in anymore discussion on the topic...it's of no real importance..
@)(++(*
-
pro bo·no
/ˌprō ˈbônō/
adverb
1.
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client with a low income:
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
did CR charge the mccanns...no......so it was Pro Bono
-
To no one in particular the differences between Pro Bono and CFA are:
CFA
Conditional fee arrangement- this is when how much you need to pay will depend on whether you win your case. For example, the agreement may be that if you do not win, you do not have to pay the barrister, or you may have to pay a smaller fixed amount and only need to pay the rest if you win.
Pro Bono
What if I cannot afford a barrister?
If you cannot afford a barrister, there are certain types of cases where you may be able to get legal aid. Legal aid means that the government will help you to meet the costs of legal advice and/or representation in a court or tribunal. More information can be found under the question "When is someone eligible for legal aid?" below.
The Bar Pro Bono Unit can also provide you with legal help if you cannot afford to pay. However, you will need to be referred to them by an advice agency such as the Citizens Advice Bureau, a Law Centre, your local MP or a Legal Advice Clinic, so it would be best to speak to one of these organisations first. You can find more information about the Bar Pro Bono Unit on their website.
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/using-a-barrister/how-do-i-pay-a-barrister/
They are not the same.
https://www.barstandardsboard.org.uk/using-a-barrister/how-do-i-pay-a-barrister/
-
pro bo·no
/ˌprō ˈbônō/
adverb
1.
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client with a low income:
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
did CR charge the mccanns...no......so it was Pro Bono
They were on a retainer.
-
They were on a retainer.
A retainer does not always involve a payment...it can be a contract setting out terms of service
Does anyone have any proof the McCanns paid any money to CR or was all work carried out without charge to the McCanns..or..pro bono
-
I have twice provided a cite there was no CFA in place
-
A retainer does not always involve a payment...it can be a contract setting out terms of service
Does anyone have any proof the McCanns paid any money to CR or was all work carried out without charge to the McCanns..or..pro bono
Aw Davel the penny has dropped...erm well on soft landing all be it. So you now agree that
"A retainer does not always involve a payment...it can be a contract setting out terms of service"
as sunny said...
"CFA
Conditional fee arrangement- this is when how much you need to pay will depend on whether you win your case. For example, the agreement may be that if you do not win, you do not have to pay the barrister, or you may have to pay a smaller fixed amount and only need to pay the rest if you win.
"
It up to you to prove that CR worked pro bono for the McCanns Davel. It was an 'out of court settlement'- the express may have paid the legal fees separately as was done with me after an accident.
My contract was no win no fee basis, there was an out of court settlement and the legal fees were paid directly to the firm from the perpetrator. I was told his fee would be 10% of the settlement as payment if we won or settled out of court.
-
I have twice provided a cite there was no CFA in place
Just how does that prove one way or another the case was pro bono?
The Law Society definition as we are dealing with a case under English Law.
Your contention is the case was pro bono, an assertion you have failed signally to demonstrate.
-
Gerry never said there was....he said there would have been.
Criticising me and you don't understand English....now that is humerous.
-
Just how does that prove one way or another the case was pro bono?
The Law Society definition as we are dealing with a case under English Law.
Your contention is the case was pro bono, an assertion you have failed signally to demonstrate.
Where have I said it proves anything...is there now a new rule where proof has to be provided.rather than just a cite
-
Just how does that prove one way or another the case was pro bono?
The Law Society definition as we are dealing with a case under English Law.
Your contention is the case was pro bono, an assertion you have failed signally to demonstrate.
You are assuming I'm using the law society definition....I'm using the general understanding of the word...pro bono....free of charge
-
Where have I said it proves anything...is there now a new rule where proof has to be provided.rather than just a cite
Moderator Comment: you have failed to provide a cite for Pro Bono. Cites have been provided for CFA and being on a retainer. Further posts on your behalf with no cite may be viewed as arguing.
-
Gerry never said there was....he said there would have been.
Criticising me and you don't understand English....now that is humerous.
"Gerry never said there was....he said there would have been".
Actually what he said at the leveson enquiry was... and I understand this may be beyond your understanding but this is what Gerry said...
Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given
-- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important.
It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann
if it wasn't for a CFA being in place. ^*&&
-
You are assuming I'm using the law society definition....I'm using the general understanding of the word...pro bono....free of charge
Or more accurately for the (public) good.
-
Moderator Comment: you have failed to provide a cite for Pro Bono. Cites have been provided for CFA and being on a retainer. Further posts on your behalf with no cite may be viewed as arguing.
CR did work free of charge to the McCann's...that fits the general definition of pro bono...free of charge....gratis
-
Or more accurately for the (public) good.
You are taking a very limited version of the definition
-
Moderator Comment: you have failed to provide a cite for Pro Bono. Cites have been provided for CFA and being on a retainer. Further posts on your behalf with no cite may be viewed as arguing.
I have provided a cite showing a CFA was not in place...there is also no confirmation that the retainer agreement involved payment.
-
Pro bono is a legal definition in law it doesn't just mean for free. This is for anyone interested and is my opinion based on the dozens of documents I have read over the last few days.
-
"Gerry never said there was....he said there would have been".
Actually what he said at the leveson enquiry was... and I understand this may be beyond your understanding but this is what Gerry said...
Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given
-- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important.
It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann
if it wasn't for a CFA being in place. ^*&&
Gerry says he doesnt believe they would have had the recources.....sounds like hes talking about a possibility to me...not an actual situation....
he is on record as saying a CFA was not becessary which confirme to me there was not one in place
-
You are taking a very limited version of the definition
You are suggesting a new definition. Pro bono means no-one pays. No win no fee means someone pays. Carter-Ruck acted on a no win no fee basis, and were paid by the Express Group.
-
You are suggesting a new definition. Pro bono means no-one pays. No win no fee means someone pays. Carter-Ruck acted on a no win no fee basis, and were paid by the Express Group.
no its a definition freely available....there was no...no win no fee agreement in place ...as confirmed by gerry...your post is factually incorrect..
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
so the action was pro bono as far as the mccanns were concerned...ie.... the mccanns paid nothing
Gerry confirms a CFA was available ,,,,....but not necessary
-
2. What legal work qualifies as pro bono?
When we refer to pro bono legal work we mean legal advice or representation provided by lawyers in the public interest, including to individuals, charities and community groups who cannot afford to pay for that advice or representation and where public and alternative means of funding are not available.
Legal work is pro bono legal work only if it is free to the client, without payment to the lawyer or law firm (regardless of the outcome) and provided voluntarily either by the lawyer or his or her firm. Providing free legal assistance to friends or relatives who are not indigent is not pro bono.
Providing initial free legal advice to potential clients who would be able to pay, would not fall into the standard definition of pro bono.
See the bit in italics. Does this apply to the McCanns' case?
https://www.lawsociety.org.uk/Support-services/Practice-management/Pro-bono/Pro-bono-FAQs/
-
no its a definition freely available....there was no...no win no fee agreement in place ...as confirmed by gerry...your post is factually incorrect..
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
so the action was pro bono as far as the mccanns were concerned...ie.... the mccanns paid nothing
Gerry confirms a CFA was available ,,,,....but not necessary
A cite from a cardiologist with an interest in the case and which comes from an unidentified source seems to be all you can provide. Where can we find this 'freely available' definition?
-
Ordinary people are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to taking on a conglomerate intent on libelling them.
If the McCanns had not found a way of of taking on the media in a way which was of no cost to them they would have had no legal redress against the publications defaming them.
pro bono
adverb & adjective NORTH AMERICAN
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms: free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More
Did Carter Ruck agree to act professionally for the McCanns and their friends? Yes they did.
How much did Carter Ruck charge the McCanns and their friends for their professional service? It didn't cost the McCann's or their friends anything at all.
Therefore it was free. As can be seen from the dictionary definition above 'pro bono' is undertaking wok on behalf of a client which doesn't incur a charge.
So what on earth is this prolonged semantics pack hunt that Davel has been subjected to really all about???
Snip
These really are just some thoughts for the future rather than anything that may be enforced in law, but we do know, and the media know, that they’re incredibly powerful. In the past they’ve been showing it by displaying images and they can help find children and that was why we chose to interact with them. However they have the potential to destroy lives and if we had not been supported as well as we had, by many different people including Carter Ruck, then they could have destroyed our lives and what was already seriously damaged.
So with such power comes marked responsibility. I think it is extremely important that ordinary people like ourselves do have the right to legal redress and I’m not sure that we could have gone through with these complaints against large organisations without the safety net of a conditional fee arrangement and that is certainly something that I think within the UK, should continue. And I’d like to ask for an appeal to the media, to remember that at the centre of every tragic story there are real people and real children and real families and we are not characters. Thank you.
Gerry McCann
https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=329261a6-5bf6-448a-9476-5b34ff80d6a2
-
Ordinary people are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to taking on a conglomerate intent on libelling them.
If the McCanns had not found a way of of taking on the media in a way which was of no cost to them they would have had no legal redress against the publications defaming them.
pro bono
adverb & adjective NORTH AMERICAN
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms: free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More
Brietta I will supply you with the cite for this part of your post ://www.socialmouth.co.uk/blog/2017/8/22/pro-bono
NORTH AMERICAN
adverb: pro bono
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms:free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More
Why did you miss this bit off.
Origin
from Latin pro bono publico ‘for the public good’.
A bit further down from where you first quoted (see cite above)
My fiancé has professional skills that don't translate to pro bono, so instead, he undertakes two days charity work a year. It's a voluntary company initiative, but yet almost everyone seems to do it, and he comes back on those two days, glowing with pride, just knowing that he did something to make a difference. This year he made cottage pie for the parents of very sick children, staying at the Ronald McDonald House. Something so simple can make such an impact on others, and he used his excellent cottage pie skills to fill someone else's tummy other than mine!
So, why not do something today, for nothing and without expecting something in return. Perhaps a friend has been asking for some advice on something you specialise in, or maybe you know of someone who would like some headshots taken for their new business? You may even have an email in your inbox from a local school asking for a careers speaker?
So it is not a witch hunt Brietta it is simply an expectation of Davel to behave according to the rules of this forum. Pro bono (from pro bono publica) in legal terms means so much more than FREE to the client.
-
I am also adding that, Brietta by supporting Davel in his statement that Carter Ruck were providing their legal support "pro bono" they were carrying out all work for charitable reasons an not expecting any payment, from anyone, in return, which of course unless you or he can provide a cite will surely be incorrect.
I apologize for going on about this but IMO it is a very important point that requires clarification.
-
I am also adding that, Brietta by supporting Davel in his statement that Carter Ruck were providing their legal support "pro bono" they were carrying out all work for charitable reasons an not expecting any payment, from anyone, in return, which of course unless you or he can provide a cite will surely be incorrect.
I apologize for going on about this but IMO it is a very important point that requires clarification.
I agree. Carter-Ruck acknowledged that they were paid;
Express Newspapers has also agreed to pay Mr and Mrs McCann’s reasonable legal costs.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/news/read/kate-and-gerry-mccann
If someone is paid they haven't worked pro bono whichever definition is used. Pro bono describes the action of those providing the service, not those receiving it.
-
Brietta I will supply you with the cite for this part of your post ://www.socialmouth.co.uk/blog/2017/8/22/pro-bono
NORTH AMERICAN
adverb: pro bono
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms:free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More
Why did you miss this bit off.
Origin
from Latin pro bono publico ‘for the public good’.
A bit further down from where you first quoted (see cite above)
My fiancé has professional skills that don't translate to pro bono, so instead, he undertakes two days charity work a year. It's a voluntary company initiative, but yet almost everyone seems to do it, and he comes back on those two days, glowing with pride, just knowing that he did something to make a difference. This year he made cottage pie for the parents of very sick children, staying at the Ronald McDonald House. Something so simple can make such an impact on others, and he used his excellent cottage pie skills to fill someone else's tummy other than mine!
So, why not do something today, for nothing and without expecting something in return. Perhaps a friend has been asking for some advice on something you specialise in, or maybe you know of someone who would like some headshots taken for their new business? You may even have an email in your inbox from a local school asking for a careers speaker?
So it is not a witch hunt Brietta it is simply an expectation of Davel to behave according to the rules of this forum. Pro bono (from pro bono publica) in legal terms means so much more than FREE to the client.
We are a discussion forum.
On this board we discuss Madeleine McCann's case and on this particular thread we are discussing whether or not the media were correct to settle out of court when faced with the action taken against them by the McCanns.
Actually, I do not believe it was in their gift to settle anything given the weight of the evidence which supported the case for defamation which the McCanns had brought against them.
If the McCanns had rejected their offer of settlement it is my opinion that they would have faced action for exemplary damages and it is my opinion that the McCanns would have won their case hands down.
All for the very simple reason that from first to last the tabloid media had printed downright lies against them and had continued to do so despite approaches made to them to desist.
Therefore if splitting hairs on this, one must contemplate whether or not it was right for the McCanns ... not the media ... to accept an out of court settlement: they were the plaintiffs in a cast iron case for them against the media.
Is there any argument that it cost them nothing to enable them to bring this legal action?
I am very well aware of the meaning of "pro bono publico" and the definition thereof.
Snip
Pro bono publico (English: for the public good; usually shortened to pro bono) is a Latin phrase for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment. Unlike traditional volunteerism, it is service that uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
Which in my neck of the woods comes down to the old saying ... "Don't try to teach your granny how to suck eggs"!
-
We are a discussion forum.
On this board we discuss Madeleine McCann's case and on this particular thread we are discussing whether or not the media were correct to settle out of court when faced with the action taken against them by the McCanns.
Actually, I do not believe it was in their gift to settle anything given the weight of the evidence which supported the case for defamation which the McCanns had brought against them.
If the McCanns had rejected their offer of settlement it is my opinion that they would have faced action for exemplary damages and it is my opinion that the McCanns would have won their case hands down.
All for the very simple reason that from first to last the tabloid media had printed downright lies against them and had continued to do so despite approaches made to them to desist.
Therefore if splitting hairs on this, one must contemplate whether or not it was right for the McCanns ... not the media ... to accept an out of court settlement: they were the plaintiffs in a cast iron case for them against the media.
Is there any argument that it cost them nothing to enable them to bring this legal action?
I am very well aware of the meaning of "pro bono publico" and the definition thereof.
Snip
Pro bono publico (English: for the public good; usually shortened to pro bono) is a Latin phrase for professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment. Unlike traditional volunteerism, it is service that uses the specific skills of professionals to provide services to those who are unable to afford them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
Which in my neck of the woods comes down to the old saying ... "Don't try to teach your granny how to suck eggs"!
Davel made a mistake and used the expression Pro Bono incorrectly, instead of admitting his error he has decided to change the meaning of the expression and continues to disrupt the forum by repeatedly arguing against cited posts.
-
Six days and still no reply.
Here’s who we have to hold responsible for resurrecting this rather pointless debate. She wouldn’t let it lie!
-
Davel made a mistake and used the expression Pro Bono incorrectly, instead of admitting his error he has decided to change the meaning of the expression and continues to disrupt the forum by repeatedly arguing against cited posts.
I used pro bono quite correctly in its broad sense...you and others are using a narrow definition simply to try and score points.
-
Davel made a mistake and used the expression Pro Bono incorrectly, instead of admitting his error he has decided to change the meaning of the expression and continues to disrupt the forum by repeatedly arguing against cited posts.
Did I mention Davel?
My post to which you have responded is in the context of the thread and in the context of the post to which I replied regarding "pro bono".
Pro bono in law seems to be a bit like the ideal of the health service being free at the point of use ... just an illusion ... we all pay for it and yet it costs us nothing.
The service the McCanns enjoyed from Carter Ruck cost them nothing. Right or wrong?
-
I used pro bono quite correctly in its broad sense...you and others are using a narrow definition simply to try and score points....I have not raised the topic this morning ...others have...and YOU have taken part in criticising me yet wishing to deny me the oppoprtunity to reply
The problem is that you didn't use pro bono correctly and are unable to provide a definition showing it's 'broad sense'.
-
The problem is that you didn't use pro bono correctly and are unable to provide a definition showing it's 'brad sense'.
If you go back to the original few posts on this subject (10 days ago now!) you will see Davel acknowleding that there is a difference but the underlying principle of the McCanns not having to pay was the same. Since then some of you have scented blood and are determined to make Davel say “I’m wrong” - it seems to me more important than the actual topic we are supposed to be discussing. That is all rather unedifying. IMO.
-
The problem is that you didn't use pro bono correctly and are unable to provide a definition showing it's 'broad sense'.
Both I and Brietta have provided the definition of the broad sense of pro bono...
-
Both I and Brietta have provided the definition of the broad sense of pro bono...
So is there an even broader sense of the words "pro bono"?
Video "What is Pro Bono?" https://youtu.be/zb2GuLGLxFQ
-
It quite often happens when a thread topic has been talked out that we are easily deflected into something else.
In my opinion this thread still has a way to go therefore it doesn't come into that category just yet and there remains the potential for expanding the discussion while still adhering to the topic.
There isn't much currently going on in the media regarding Madeleine's case ... but it wasn't always so ... making a media based topic a dawdle to stick to.
Let's get back to topic folks ... "Were the media wrong to settle defamation actions out of court?"
-
IMO that action was indeterminable since it was not known what happened to the child and if the parents were as innocent as they claimed. I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement. If in the end this turns out badly for the parents then that money will be repayable. The court should not have released that money until Maddie's fate has been legally established imo.
44
This is the OP. Surely it isn't right to make claims damaging someone without hard evidence. Even if in the long term the claim did get proven correct, the claim cannot be made until the evidence has been decided in a trial?
How would you feel if someone claimed you killed a child? OK they could then say, according to your argument, we won't pay damages because there are unsolved cases and it is possible one of these is still attributable to you.
-
If you go back to the original few posts on this subject (10 days ago now!) you will see Davel acknowleding that there is a difference but the underlying principle of the McCanns not having to pay was the same. Since then some of you have scented blood and are determined to make Davel say “I’m wrong” - it seems to me more important than the actual topic we are supposed to be discussing. That is all rather unedifying. IMO.
Pro bono describes the terms under which a professional provides a service. not how a client experiences the service. In this case the client's experience is the same whether the service is provided pro bono or under a conditional fee agreement.
-
This is the OP. Surely it isn't right to make claims damaging someone without hard evidence. Even if in the long term the claim did get proven correct, the claim cannot be made until the evidence has been decided in a trial?
How would you feel if someone claimed you killed a child? OK they could then say, according to your argument, we won't pay damages because there are unsolved cases and it is possible one of these is still attributable to you.
I think the question lies more with the options the McCanns had towards the suing of the press in court than the options the press had for being taken to the cleaners had the McCanns done so.
In my opinion the press did not have a leg to stand on such was the volume and nature of the headlines they had chosen to print without let or hindrance.
-
In a broad sense pro bono means work carried out free of charge...and not necessarily legal work
We will not agree so I see no point in continuing the discussion
-
In a broad sense pro bono means work carried out free of charge...and not necessarily legal work
We will not agree so I see no point in continuing the discussion
Pro bono means those providing the service are doing it for nothing; win or lose.
-
Pro bono means those providing the service are doing it for nothing; win or lose.
That's your definition and therefore your opinion...
-
Pro bono describes the terms under which a professional provides a service. not how a client experiences the service. In this case the client's experience is the same whether the service is provided pro bono or under a conditional fee agreement.
So from the McCanns’ point of view there is no difference between pro bono or CFA. Great, glad that’s sorted. Perhaps we can move on now?
-
Ordinary people are on a hiding to nothing when it comes to taking on a conglomerate intent on libelling them.
If the McCanns had not found a way of of taking on the media in a way which was of no cost to them they would have had no legal redress against the publications defaming them.
pro bono
adverb & adjective NORTH AMERICAN
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms: free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More
Did Carter Ruck agree to act professionally for the McCanns and their friends? Yes they did.
How much did Carter Ruck charge the McCanns and their friends for their professional service? It didn't cost the McCann's or their friends anything at all.
Therefore it was free. As can be seen from the dictionary definition above 'pro bono' is undertaking wok on behalf of a client which doesn't incur a charge.
So what on earth is this prolonged semantics pack hunt that Davel has been subjected to really all about???
Snip
These really are just some thoughts for the future rather than anything that may be enforced in law, but we do know, and the media know, that they’re incredibly powerful. In the past they’ve been showing it by displaying images and they can help find children and that was why we chose to interact with them. However they have the potential to destroy lives and if we had not been supported as well as we had, by many different people including Carter Ruck, then they could have destroyed our lives and what was already seriously damaged.
So with such power comes marked responsibility. I think it is extremely important that ordinary people like ourselves do have the right to legal redress and I’m not sure that we could have gone through with these complaints against large organisations without the safety net of a conditional fee arrangement and that is certainly something that I think within the UK, should continue. And I’d like to ask for an appeal to the media, to remember that at the centre of every tragic story there are real people and real children and real families and we are not characters. Thank you.
Gerry McCann
https://www.ibanet.org/Article/NewDetail.aspx?ArticleUid=329261a6-5bf6-448a-9476-5b34ff80d6a2
CR didn’t do the work free of charge. The Express settled and paid CR. Before and after that CR were paid a retainer probably by the fund or a wealthy benefactor. If the case had gone to court and the McCanns had lost the insurance that would have been taken out with the CFA would have paid CR’s bill. Pro bono, by the BRITISH Law society definition means the law firm does the work for nothing, is paid by no one.
At no time did CR work for nothing ie pro bono. How much clearer does it have to be made ?
-
CR didn’t do the work free of charge. The Express settled and paid CR. Before and after that CR were paid a retainer probably by the fund or a wealthy benefactor. If the case had gone to court and the McCanns had lost the insurance that would have been taken out with the CFA would have paid CR’s bill. Pro bono, by the BRITISH Law society definition means the law firm does the work for nothing, is paid by no one.
At no time did CR work for nothing ie pro bono. How much clearer does it have to be made ?
In the conflict with the express CR did the initial stages free of charge to the McCann's...pro bono...the express capitulated and there was no need for a CFA according to Gerry...CR then recovered fees from the express.
-
So from the McCanns’ point of view there is no difference between pro bono or CFA. Great, glad that’s sorted. Perhaps we can move on now?
I think you've missed the point. Because the McCann's experience is identical we can't deduce what arrangement was in place by referring to it's effect on them.
-
In the conflict with the express CR did the initial stages free of charge to the McCann's...pro bono...the express capitulated and there was no need for a CFA according to Gerry...CR then recovered fees from the express..
In the initial stages CR were on a retainer, I have already posted the cite.
-
IMO that action was indeterminable since it was not known what happened to the child and if the parents were as innocent as they claimed. I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement. If in the end this turns out badly for the parents then that money will be repayable. The court should not have released that money until Maddie's fate has been legally established imo.
44
OK can Angelo define the following terms in the OP?
"that action" - what action?
Is he saying it is not known "what happened to the child"?
Is he saying it is not known "if the parents were as innocent as they claimed"?
What is meant by "I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement." What is more relevant?
Who says the money is repayable?
-
OK can Angelo define the following terms in the OP?
"that action" - what action?
Is he saying it is not known "what happened to the child"?
Is he saying it is not known "if the parents were as innocent as they claimed"?
What is meant by "I think this is even more relevant now given the SC statement." What is more relevant?
Who says the money is repayable?
"that action" refers to any libel case against the media. It wasn't known then what happened to the child and it still isn't known. Furthermore, the Portuguese SC has stated that the parents have not been cleared which renders any future libel action somewhat precarious imo.
-
"that action" refers to any libel case against the media. It wasn't known then what happened to the child and it still isn't known. Furthermore, the Portuguese SC has stated that the parents have not been cleared which renders any future libel action somewhat precarious imo.
in the UK the mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence...amaral would not be able to make his statements or sell his book in the uk......the ECHR may well decide the SC got their judgeemnt totally wrong...as they have done before...portugal ahd two rulings against the in June this year...whcih shows the court does not always get things right
-
in the UK the mccanns are entitled to the presumption of innocence...amaral would not be able to make his statements or sell his book in the uk......the ECHR may well decide the SC got their judgeemnt totally wrong...as they have done before...portugal ahd two rulings against the in June this year...whcih shows the court does not always get things right
Entitled to a presumption of innocence is simply a legal platitude.
-
Entitled to a presumption of innocence is simply a legal platitude.
Not in a UK libel case it isn't...it's extremely important..
Let me rephrase it
They have the RIGHT to be considered INNOCENT....that's important in a libel case...very important
-
Gerry says he doesnt believe they would have had the recources.....sounds like hes talking about a possibility to me...not an actual situation....
he is on record as saying a CFA was not becessary which confirme to me there was not one in place
Just because something ended up being unnecessary is hardly evidence it wasn't already in place. Gerry admitted that he wouldn't have been able to take on the media without a Conditional Fee Arrangement being in place so no doubt it was put in place before Carter Ruck lodged their libel action. As it turned out though it wasn't needed as the media rolled over and paid up, damages to the McCanns and fees to CR.
-
Just because something ended up being unnecessary is hardly evidence it wasn't already in place. Gerry admitted that he wouldn't have been able to take on the media without a Conditional Fee Arrangement being in place so no doubt it was put in place before Carter Ruck lodged their libel action. As it turned out though it wasn't needed as the media rolled over and paid up, damages to the McCanns and fees to CR.
You are quoting your opinion..there is no proof the CFA had been put in place
-
I am also adding that, Brietta by supporting Davel in his statement that Carter Ruck were providing their legal support "pro bono" they were carrying out all work for charitable reasons an not expecting any payment, from anyone, in return, which of course unless you or he can provide a cite will surely be incorrect.
I apologize for going on about this but IMO it is a very important point that requires clarification.
Can I suggest that CR might have provided the initial consultation on a pro bono basis but they most certainly wouldn't have wanted to enter into any court action without having some sort of CFA in place.
-
You are quoting your opinion..there is no proof the CFA had been put in place
Off course it was in place, GM said so. CR would never have issued a writ against the papers without one. They are lawyers, not a charity.
-
Can I suggest that CR might have provided the initial consultation on a pro bono basis but they most certainly wouldn't have wanted to enter into any court action without having some sort of CFA in place.
Agreed....consultation on a pro bono basis
-
Off course it was in place, GM said so. CR would never have issued a writ against the papers without one.
We've been through this already...you believe what you want and I will do the same...do you have proof a writ was issued
-
Can I suggest that CR might have provided the initial consultation on a pro bono basis but they most certainly wouldn't have wanted to enter into any court action without having some sort of CFA in place.
CR were paid a retainer. They did no work for free.
-
In a broad sense pro bono means work carried out free of charge...and not necessarily legal work
We will not agree so I see no point in continuing the discussion
The term 'pro bono' or full version of 'pro bono publico' translates as 'for the public good'.
Pro bono legal representation usually relates to defendants who do not have the resources to properly defend themselves in a case of public interest. It is not something a complainant could rightly seek when pursuing £100,000's in libel damages.
-
The term 'pro bono' or full version of 'pro bono publico' translates as 'for the public good'.
Pro bono legal representation usually relates to defendants who do not have the resources to properly defend themselves in a case of public interest. It is not something a complainant could rightly seek when pursuing £100,000's in libel damages.
What I have said is the same as Angelo has just posted...the initial consultation was pro bono...imo..but the writ would have been via a CFA.....which as Gerry said was not needed....the express capitulated
-
Can I suggest that CR might have provided the initial consultation on a pro bono basis but they most certainly wouldn't have wanted to enter into any court action without having some sort of CFA in place.
An initial consultation is free with every lawyer, pro bono has nothing to do with it.
-
We've been through this already...you believe what you want and I will do the same...do you have proof a writ was issued
Oh my, you've gone all pedantic. You cannot launch a legal action without serving a writ, thought you knew that? %#&%4%
-
Oh my, you've gone all pedantic. You cannot launch a legal action without serving a writ, thought you knew that? %#&%4%
You can threaten legal action without serving a writ...and the other side may capitulated...as happened here
-
What I have said is the same as Angelo has just posted...the initial consultation was pro bono...imo..but the writ would have been via a CFA.....which as Gerry said was not needed....the express capitulated
I think you have answered your own question. The writ would have been lodged and served on the basis of a CFA.
-
An initial consultation is free with every lawyer, pro bono has nothing to do with it.
Not every lawyer offers a free consultation....and in this case it seems CR did more than that....it seems they threatened legal action and the express capitulated
-
You can threaten legal action without serving a writ...and the other side may capitulated...as happened here
You're not serious Dave? Threats mean nothing when it comes to libel action.
-
I think you have answered your own question. The writ would have been lodged and served on the basis of a CFA.
That's what I have said for the last three days....I have never suggest ed this would be done pro bono
-
You're not serious Dave? Threats mean nothing when it comes to libel action.
I'm very serious....CR send a letter alleging libel....the express apologize and pay damages....no writ issued
-
You're not serious Dave? Threats mean nothing when it comes to libel action.
They do when they come from CR....Gerry said a CFA was not necessary....so on what basis would a writ have been drawn up
-
I'm very serious....CR send a letter alleging libel....the express apologize and pay damages....no writ issued
That's not how it works Dave. Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter. Its absurd frankly.
This is becoming silly now.
-
They do when they come from CR....Gerry said a CFA was not necessary....so on what basis would a writ have been drawn up
CR @)(++(* %56&
-
That's not how it works Dave. Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter. Its absurd frankly.
This is becoming silly now.
not just based on a letter......a series of discussions following a letter....you are claiming a writ was drawn up...gerry said a CFA was not necessary...so on what basis of payment would this alleged writ have been drawn up..
-
I think you have answered your own question. The writ would have been lodged and served on the basis of a CFA.
Gerry said a CFA was not necessary....
-
That's not how it works Dave. Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter. Its absurd frankly.
This is becoming silly now.
John it has been sadly silly for days. Gerry McCann has already admitted having a CFA in place an we know CR expected to be paid, for which I can't blame them.
I am sorry to have to to point out that when I joined this forum I was expecting every member to provide a cite or back down and either modify their posts or apologise for misleading. Sadly this too doesn't seem to be in place here at least not in all instances anyway this thread a case in point.
-
John it has been sadly silly for days. Gerry McCann has already admitted having a CFA in place an we know CR expected to be paid, for which I can't blame them.
I am sorry to have to to point out that when I joined this forum I was expecting every member to provide a cite or back down and either modify their posts or apologise for misleading. Sadly this too doesn't seem to be in place here at least not in all instances anyway this thread a case in point.
I have provided a cite several times where gerry states a CFA was not necessary...have you not seen it..
I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.
this claim i have not provided cites is totally untrue..
-
And I have already given you a cite where they said a CFA was in place.
Which is it, certainly not PB that is clear.
Perhaps they didn't need to use the CFA because the Express caved in albeit a CFA was in place should they need it.
-
And I have already given you a cite where they said a CFA was in place.
Which is it, certainly not PB that is clear.
Perhaps they didn't need to use the CFA because the Express caved in albeit a CFA was in place should they need it.
you have not supplied a cite confirming a CFA was in place....that was your interpretation of the statement...
-
And I have already given you a cite where they said a CFA was in place.
Which is it, certainly not PB that is clear.
Perhaps they didn't need to use the CFA because the Express caved in albeit a CFA was in place should they need it.
On what basis was the work undertaken by Carter Ruck then if the CFA was never activated?
-
Not in a UK libel case it isn't...it's extremely important..
Let me rephrase it
They have the RIGHT to be considered INNOCENT....that's important in a libel case...very important
I hope you are right.
-
Note it was not me who revived this topic ...that was supposed to have been closed...but posts directed towards me taht I should be at liberty to answer
-
I hope you are right.
I am right...libel law in the uk is quite clear
-
On what basis was the work undertaken by Carter Ruck then if the CFA was never activated?
On a retainer (as per Adam Tudor). So not free
Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm
-
That's not how it works Dave. Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter. Its absurd frankly.
This is becoming silly now.
Settlement Basics
“Settlement” is just a term for formal resolution of a legal dispute without the matter being decided by a court judgment (jury verdict or judge's ruling). Usually that means the defendant offers a certain sum of money to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff's signing a release of the defendant's liability in connection with the underlying incident or transaction. This can happen at any point in a civil lawsuit. It can even occur before the plaintiff files a lawsuit at all, if the parties can come together a reach a fair agreement soon after the dispute arises, and both sides are motivated to do so.
so a settlement can be made before a lawsuit is filed...or a writ issued inother words
-
On a retainer (as per Adam Tudor). So not free
Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm
so you have now changed track from CFA to retainer...retainers do not always involve the paymnet of fees unless a case is started...
Retainer
A contract between attorney and client specifying the nature of the services to be rendered and the cost of the services.
Retainer also denotes the fee that the client pays when employing an attorney to act on her behalf. When a client retains an attorney to act for her, the client thereby prevents the attorney from acting for an adversary.
yet another cite supplied
-
No Davel that was in reply to Vertigo Swirl not you.
Here is your own special reply (sorry I don't know how to quote myself from pages ago)
Mr Jay
One point you make, these libel proceedings were brought with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is that correct?
Link in context Link
Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given -- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important. It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg474781#msg474781
He said "if it wasn't for a CFA being in place" Davel.
-
On a retainer (as per Adam Tudor). So not free
Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm
This is rather a comprehensive summary.
-
No Davel that was in reply to Vertigo Swirl not you.
Here is your own special reply (sorry I don't know how to quote myself from pages ago)
Mr Jay
One point you make, these libel proceedings were brought with the benefit of conditional fee agreements; is that correct?
Link in context Link
Mr McCann
Yes. I think it's very important, given the scale of the task that faced us, and we were given -- we made our decisions after being fully informed of the pathway, and I think that's very important. It was a last resort. And at the time, given our circumstances, I do not believe we would have had the resource to go down that path if it wasn't for a CFA being in place.
https://leveson.sayit.mysociety.org/hearing-23-november-2011/dr-gerald-patrick-mccann-and-dr-kate-marie-mccann
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9827.msg474781#msg474781
He said "if it wasn't for a CFA being in place" Davel.
Gerry says they could not have gone down that path without a CFA being in place...from what I have seen they did not need to go down that path so the CFA was unnecessary...imo....
-
Gerry says they could not have gone down that path without a CFA being in place...from what I have seen they did not need to go down that path so the CFA was unnecessary
It appears to me to be a "big stick", that ultimately doesn't get used. It is debatable whether having the "big stick" persuaded the other party to submit or not, for the "big stick" was never used but it was waved around.
-
I'm very serious....CR send a letter alleging libel....the express apologize and pay damages....no writ issued
I don't think a court hearing arises as a result of people sending letters to others;
The case of McCann and McCann versus Express Newspapers commenced on 19th March 2008 in Court 13 of the High Court, with Judge Eady presiding.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id89.htm
A court date is set after an application has been filed and served on the defendant(s). When the application is filed the court fees must be paid. Ten thousand pounds for claims over £200,000.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court
-
I see it that CR were paid by the fund (or the McCann's direct) as a retainer. This covered all the early work an there was a CFA in place should it need to go to court. Either way CR would get paid and were not doing anything free.
Of course as per rules this is AIMO
-
I don't think a court hearing arises as a result of people sending letters to others;
The case of McCann and McCann versus Express Newspapers commenced on 19th March 2008 in Court 13 of the High Court, with Judge Eady presiding.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id89.htm
A court date is set after an application has been filed and served on the defendant(s). When the application is filed the court fees must be paid. Ten thousand pounds for claims over £200,000.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court
it starts with a letter......then a discussion...I have provided a cite to show an out of court settlement can be agreed before legal proceedings are started
-
I see it that CR were paid by the fund (or the McCann's direct) as a retainer. This covered all the early work an there was a CFA in place should it need to go to court. Either way CR would get paid and were not doing anything free.
Of course as per rules this is AIMO
you have your opinion and I have mine...
-
Let's agree to disagree. IMO mine is a fact based opinion and I will never agree with you on this.
Do you at least agree they paid CR using a retainer prior to any court or do you still insist that CR were doing it free (to everyone). Remember I have shown that some newspapers paid the McCanns' legal fees - if CR were free there would be no legal fees of course
-
Settlement Basics
“Settlement” is just a term for formal resolution of a legal dispute without the matter being decided by a court judgment (jury verdict or judge's ruling). Usually that means the defendant offers a certain sum of money to the plaintiff in exchange for the plaintiff's signing a release of the defendant's liability in connection with the underlying incident or transaction. This can happen at any point in a civil lawsuit. It can even occur before the plaintiff files a lawsuit at all, if the parties can come together a reach a fair agreement soon after the dispute arises, and both sides are motivated to do so.
so a settlement can be made before a lawsuit is filed...or a writ issued inother words
Hardly likely in a case where a huge sum of money is involved. No defendant is ever going to hand over a pile of cash on the basis of a letter and that is why a writ is lodged with the royal courts. If you can prove that this didn't happen in the McCann case then let's see your evidence, otherwise put a sock in it...nicely off course!
-
Hardly likely in a case where a huge sum of money is involved. No defendant is ever going to hand over a pile of cash on the basis of a letter and that is why a writ is lodged with the royal courts. If you can prove that this didn't happen in the McCann case then let's see your evidence, otherwise put a sock in it...nicely off course!
Can you prove a writ was lodged....let's see your evidence otherwise put a sock in it...nicely of course...
If it was clear to the solicitors for the express that there was no defense to an accusation of libel they would advise settlement writ or no writ... Imo
-
Let's agree to disagree. IMO mine is a fact based opinion and I will never agree with you on this.
Do you at least agree they paid CR using a retainer prior to any court or do you still insist that CR were doing it free (to everyone). Remember I have shown that some newspapers paid the McCanns' legal fees - if CR were free there would be no legal fees of course
I have provided a cite showing a retainer does not always involve pre payment..I have seen no proof the McCann's paid CR a penny.... obviously as I have stated all along they recovered their fees from the defendants
-
Hardly likely in a case where a huge sum of money is involved. No defendant is ever going to hand over a pile of cash on the basis of a letter and that is why a writ is lodged with the royal courts. If you can prove that this didn't happen in the McCann case then let's see your evidence, otherwise put a sock in it...nicely off course!
As I have already posted...it starts with s letter from CR to the newspaper...the paper forwards the letter to is solicitors and then the two solicitors thrash out a deal...no need for a writ
-
That's what I have said for the last three days....I have never suggest ed this would be done pro bono
Are you for real Davel? I could give you probably 5 or more cites of you saying this exact same thing
Here's one
CR did work free of charge to the McCann's...that fits the general definition of pro bono...free of charge....gratis
-
As I have already posted...it starts with s letter from CR to the newspaper...the paper forwards the letter to is solicitors and then the two solicitors thrash out a deal...no need for a writ
You really haven't a clue have you, what you are suggesting just doesn't happen in the real world. The McCann's lawyers Carter Ruck raised a civil action in the courts and that requires that a writ be lodged in order to initiate the action.
"The settlement was confirmed at a High Court hearing, although the amount of damages was not formally disclosed."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm
ETA as already pointed out, settlement usually follows the issuing of a writ.
-
Are you for real Davel? I could give you probably 5 or more cites of you saying this exact same thing
Here's one
CR did work free of charge to the McCann's...that fits the general definition of pro bono...free of charge....gratis
You've taken the post out of context.....I never suggested CR would provide a writ pro bono...just the initial work...
-
You really haven't a clue have you, what you are suggesting just doesn't happen in the real world. The McCann's lawyers Carter Ruck raised a civil action in the courts and that requires that a writ be lodged in order to initiate the action.
"The settlement was confirmed at a High Court hearing, although the amount of damages was not formally disclosed."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7303801.stm
Where's your cite for an action being raised in court....it was settled out of court....afaiac...you have no cite for any court action being instigated...it wasn't necessary...if it was then the CFA would have been necessary
-
OK Davel from a case between the McCanns and someone called Tony Bennett
"In relation to your queries about our clients' costs, we entered into as fee-paying retainer with our clients in relation to this Contempt of Court application.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id401.htm
Note "fee paying retainer".
-
You've taken the post out of context.....I never suggested CR would provide a writ pro bono...just the initial work...
And we all know CR were paid for all the work they did, pro bono never entered the equation so you are wrong on two counts now.
-
Are you for real Davel? I could give you probably 5 or more cites of you saying this exact same thing
Here's one
CR did work free of charge to the McCann's...that fits the general definition of pro bono...free of charge....gratis
...and on more than one thread! There is a saying that you have got to put your money where your mouth is, The McCanns mouth was seeking money for trashy jurnos- CR don't do 'charity work' for companies with funds at their disposal, oh the very idea hahaha... and it was a real long shot, so an agreement was reached and in place also a retainer would have been discussed.
-
Where's your cite for an action being raised in court....it was settled out of court....afaiac...you have no cite for any court action being instigated...it wasn't necessary...if it was then the CFA would have been necessary
The operative word is Court!!
If it had been settled privately as you wrongly suggested then the court wouldn't have been involved.
-
And we all know CR were paid for all the work they did, pro bono never entered the equation so you are wrong on two counts now.
You actually used the expression yourself in s post this evening...so you are contradicting yourself
-
The operative word is Court
No..the operative phrase is....out of court
-
Can I suggest that CR might have provided the initial consultation on a pro bono basis but they most certainly wouldn't have wanted to enter into any court action without having some sort of CFA in place.
Pro bono basis
-
No..the operative phrase is....out of court
You do realise that an out of court settlement is governed by the court?
A judge still has to approve the terms of the settlement.
-
You do realise that an out of court settlement is governed by the court?
Yes but it can be made before court proceedings start... before a writ is issued
-
Yes but it can be made before court proceedings start... before a writ is issued
I give up, you are being intentionally optuse. The McCann settlement was done in court and that required that a writ be issued. End off!!
-
I give up, you are being intentionally optuse. The McCann settlement was done in court and that required that a writ be issued. End off!!
In fact an out of court settlement can be made without the approval of the judge...I have provided a cite but it has been removed... interestingly it seems out of court settlements cannot usually be appealed.....so the express won't be asking for their money back
-
Out-of-Court Settlement. An agreement reached between the parties in a pending lawsuit that resolves the dispute to their mutual satisfaction and occurs without judicial intervention, supervision, or approval. An out-of-court settlement provides that the parties relinquish their rights to pursue judicial remedies.
-
In fact an out of court settlement can be made without the approval of the judge...I have provided a cite but it has been removed... interestingly it seems out of court settlements cannot usually be appealed.....so the express won't be asking for their money back
If it is ever determined that the libel settlement was incompetent then they would be asked to pay it back.. Happened before with Geoffry Archer!
You are taking this thread all over the place. We can all quote about this and the next thing but this is soley about the McCanns case. which was dealt with at court! and all cites have been provided.
So it doesn't really matter what you believe pro bono means OR what type of OOC settlements can be agreed. It is irrelevant in the McCanns case.
And this behavour does smack of trolling.
-
If it is ever determined that the libel settlement was incompetent then they would be asked to pay it back.. Happened before with Geoffry Archer!
You are taking this thread all over the place. We can all quote about this and the next thing but this is soley about the McCanns case. which was dealt with at court! and all cites have been provided.
So it doesn't really matter what you believe pro bono means OR what type of OOC settlements can be agreed. It is irrelevant in the McCanns case.
And this behavour does smack of trolling.
Archer wasn't an out of court settlement
I've actually suggested the subject was dropped several times...but posters keep raising it again...perhaps now it can be left
-
Out-of-Court Settlement. An agreement reached between the parties in a pending lawsuit that resolves the dispute to their mutual satisfaction and occurs without judicial intervention, supervision, or approval. An out-of-court settlement provides that the parties relinquish their rights to pursue judicial remedies.
Interesting that you post this when you thought earlier that the out of court settlements in the McCann versus the UK media cases were done privately. You were wrong of course as the court oversaw the settlement.
Snip
"The McCanns, who did not attend today's High Court hearing, said in a statement: "We are pleased that Express Newspapers have today admitted the utter falsity of the numerous grotesque and grossly defamatory allegations that their titles published about us on a sustained basis over many months.
"The exceptional publication of these apologies, together with today's statement of full apology in open court before Mr Justice Eady, was the only just and proper response by Express Newspapers following our complaint."
As part of the terms of settlement, a solicitor for Express Newspapers today also read out an apology before a High Court judge."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582178/McCanns-pleased-as-Daily-Express-and-Daily-Star-pay-out-550000-damages.html
-
The bottom line to all this davel being that the lawyers acting for the McCanns ie Carter Ruck, would have to have raised proceedings in the High Court and in order to do that they would serve a copy of the writ on the defendants.
I await your retraction with interest.
-
If it is ever determined that the libel settlement was incompetent then they would be asked to pay it back.. Happened before with Geoffry Archer!
What would happen would be that the papers would raise an action in the civil court to get their money back.
-
In the case of perjury yes.
-
I don't think you can commit perjury unless you have testified in court so that wouldn't apply in this case. I have had a google and it appears it is virtually impossible to get money back from an out of court settlement, as Davel has said.
There may be exceptions of course but I didn't delve that far.
All IMO.
-
I don't think you can commit perjury unless you have testified in court so that wouldn't apply in this case. I have had a google and it appears it is virtually impossible to get money back from an out of court settlement, as Davel has said.
There may be exceptions of course but I didn't delve that far.
All IMO.
If it can be shown that non-disclosure by one party led to the court making an order substantially different to that it would have otherwise have made, then any order can be altered or set aside. The difficulty however is that funds are often spent or transferred so cannot be recouped.
-
No..the operative phrase is....out of court
They went court though. Not even the McCanns can just wander into a court, grab a judge and make statements.
In order to arrive in court an application has to be made and the court fee paid. It's the Queen's Bench Division which deals with defamation cases. A claim form is completed and in this case a fee of £10,000 would be paid as the claim would exceed £200K. The defendant is then notified by the claimant/his or her lawyer. The court is notified that the claim has been served on the defendant.
I don't think the Newspaper gave in at this point, because a court date was set. Ah agreement was reached after the court set a date for the trial, but before the trial commenced. That's why the solicitors turned up and read prepared statements before the judge.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court
-
They went court though. Not even the McCanns can just wander into a court, grab a judge and make statements.
In order to arrive in court an application has to be made and the court fee paid. It's the Queen's Bench Division which deals with defamation cases. A claim form is completed and in this case a fee of £10,000 would be paid as the claim would exceed £200K. The defendant is then notified by the claimant/his or her lawyer. The court is notified that the claim has been served on the defendant.
I don't think the Newspaper gave in at this point, because a court date was set. Ah agreement was reached after the court set a date for the trial, but before the trial commenced. That's why the solicitors turned up and read prepared statements before the judge.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court
According to Angelo an out of court settlement can be ratified by the court...it is therefore possible that an agreement was reached and this hearing was simply to ratify the agreement and have declarations made in court by the express...we just do not know
An out of court settlement can be put in place via an order of the court...this may well be what this hearing was
-
According to Angelo an out of court settlement can be ratified by the court...it is therefore possible that an agreement was reached and this hearing was simply to ratify the agreement and have declarations made in court by the express...we just do not know
An out of court settlement can be put in place via an order of the court...this may well be what this hearing was
I have provided a cite which demonstrates how a damages case reaches court. I have seen nothing which suggests that a court hearing can be arranged to ratify an out of court agreement.
It would be helpful if you found information which supports your musings, as without it that's all they are.
-
I have provided a cite which demonstrates how a damages case reaches court. I have seen nothing which suggests that a court hearing can be arranged to ratify an out of court agreement.
It would be helpful if you found information which supports your musings, as without it that's all they are.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)
Have a read....it says an out of court settlement is often put in place by a court order....which obviously would require a court hearing
Quote...
he settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.
I have supplied countless cites to support my argument...every claim is supported by a cite
-
Kate and Gerry McCann were forced to take legal action when they were defamed by the press many years ago ... and in more recent times when false information was again published concerning them by the Sunday Times.
These actions ... and actions taken by their friends who were also defamed by the press ... resulted in the award of damages ... the proceeds of which were paid directly into Madeleine's Fund.
Bearing in mind that Madeleine's Fund is in existence to finance the continuing search for her ... when no police force either here or in Portugal was actively doing so ... my opinion is, no fund = no search for Madeleine.
Not to worry that Madeleine's parents were libelled by the press in the most heinous way possible ... not to worry that the damages the press were forced to reluctantly cough up - (all of which had made money hand over fist in 'reporting' Madeleine's case and were therefore merely paying back a fraction of what they had made out of her) - and replenish the Madeleine Fund.
Why is it my impression that debating whether or not the press should pay for its crime has everything to do with the chagrin that Madeleine's Fund was replenished as a result ... enabling her parents to keep the search for her going until Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria took up the reins of their legal responsibilities six years after Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Kate and Gerry McCann were forced to take legal action when they were defamed by the press many years ago ... and in more recent times when false information was again published concerning them by the Sunday Times.
These actions ... and actions taken by their friends who were also defamed by the press ... resulted in the award of damages ... the proceeds of which were paid directly into Madeleine's Fund.
Bearing in mind that Madeleine's Fund is in existence to finance the continuing search for her ... when no police force either here or in Portugal was actively doing so ... my opinion is, no fund = no search for Madeleine.
Not to worry that Madeleine's parents were libelled by the press in the most heinous way possible ... not to worry that the damages the press were forced to reluctantly cough up - (all of which had made money hand over fist in 'reporting' Madeleine's case and were therefore merely paying back a fraction of what they had made out of her) - and replenish the Madeleine Fund.
Why is it my impression that debating whether or not the press should pay for its crime has everything to do with the chagrin that Madeleine's Fund was replenished as a result ... enabling her parents to keep the search for her going until Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria took up the reins of their legal responsibilities six years after Madeleine's disappearance.
I haven't seen anyone expressing 'chagrin' that Madeleine's Fund was replenished.
-
I haven't seen anyone expressing 'chagrin' that Madeleine's Fund was replenished.
Actions speak louder than words ^*&&
-
Actions speak louder than words ^*&&
In other words it's merely your opinion.
-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)
Have a read....it says an out of court settlement is often put in place by a court order....which obviously would require a court hearing
Quote...
he settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.
I have supplied countless cites to support my argument...every claim is supported by a cite
@)(++(* just yesterday you were claiming it was a private agreement done without court involvement. I'm glad you agree you were mistaken cite or no cite.
-
@)(++(* just yesterday you were claiming it was a private agreement done without court involvement. I'm glad you agree you were mistaken cite or no cite.
I'm not mistaken
I still think it was an agreement made without court involvement but enforced by a court order...I can't see any defence to the libel claim so can't see the solicitors not advising settlement out of court
-
I'm not mistaken
I still think it was an agreement made without court involvement but enforced by a court order...I can't see any defence to the libel claim so can't see the solicitors not advising settlement out of court
There's no such thing, either the court is involved or it isn't. In the McCann case, a writ was raised and served on the defendants. The judge would hear both sides and ask them to go away and agree terms between themselves. They did that and came back to court where the agreement was made binding.
-
There's no such thing, either the court is involved or it isn't. In the McCann case, a writ was raised and served on the defendants. The judge would hear both sides and ask them to go away and agree terms between themselves. They did that and came back to court where the agreement was made binding.
You have no cite for any of that....so where are the newspaper reports for the hearing...no evidence that any of that happened...cite...you won't have one
The judge heard both sides in court but no journalist reported it....you must have dreamt it
-
You have no cite for any of that....so where are the newspaper reports for the hearing...no evidence that any of that happened...cite...you won't have one
The judge heard both sides in court but no journalist reported it....you must have dreamt it
Several media reports were posted yesterday so I have no need to add to this. It's all very logical really.
-
Several media reports were posted yesterday so I have no need to add to this. It's all very logical really.
Not one report of any evidence being presented...none at all....so you have no cite ...just an opinion that it's logical
If you read the articles you will see that all that was presented in court were apologies by the express...LOL
-
.
Quote
Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.
"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.
They didn't even try to fight the action in court
-
.
Quote
Roy Greenslade, professor of journalism at City University London, said the apology was unprecedented and that it was significant that the newspapers had settled out of court.
"It shows just how culpable they were that they didn't even try to fight the action in court," he told BBC radio.
They didn't even try to fight the action in court
No court Davel?
The McCanns, who did not attend today's High Court hearing, said in a statement: "We are pleased that Express Newspapers have today admitted the utter falsity of the numerous grotesque and grossly defamatory allegations that their titles published about us on a sustained basis over many months.
"The exceptional publication of these apologies, together with today's statement of full apology in open court before Mr Justice Eady, was the only just and proper response by Express Newspapers following our complaint."
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582178/McCanns-pleased-as-Daily-Express-and-Daily-Star-pay-out-550000-damages.html
-
Apologies Davel you were right this time. You had said they went in to court to have apologies read out and from what I can see that is all that happened. Still doesn't make CR free though.
-
Apologies Davel you were right this time. You had said they went in to court to have apologies read out and from what I can see that is all that happened. Still doesn't make CR free though.
CR will have been paid well...by the newspapers...
-
CR will have been paid well...by the newspapers...
And if the McCann's lost using Carter Ruck in the UK like they did in Portugal using another lawyer, Duarte? Who pays then as CR weren't going to do it for nothing.
Modified post as per Robittybob1.
-
CR will have been paid well...by the newspapers...
It would be interesting to be apprised just how you believe that happened, and by what mechanism, in the real world and not one you have just invented.
Work out the contractual relationships, follow the money then you will realise who paid in actuality.
-
And if the McCann's lost like they did with Goncalo Amaral? Who pays then as CR weren't going to do it for nothing.
How many times have CR lost a no win no fee libel case in court
-
How many times have CR lost a libel case in court
Do you really expect someone to know the answer to a question like that?
-
It would be interesting to be apprised just how you believe that happened, and by what mechanism, in the real world and not one you have just invented.
Work out the contractual relationships, follow the money then you will realise who paid in actuality.
If the money is paid by the papers and handed to CR they might keep a share and the rest goes to the Madeleine Fund. With that situation it could be said the papers paid CR.
-
And if the McCann's lost like they did with Goncalo Amaral? Who pays then as CR weren't going to do it for nothing.
Was Carter Ruck involved in the case against Amaral and others in Portugal?
-
Was Carter Ruck involved in the case against Amaral and others in Portugal?
No that was Isabel Duarte if I recall. I see what you mean though Robittybob1 I wasn't very clear there was I. I will modify the post.
-
Was Carter Ruck involved in the case against Amaral and others in Portugal?
That's all very hush hush like so much in this case Robbie. They could very well have acted as intermediaries or may even have recommended Duarte for all we know, these lawyers have tentacles everywhere.
Any particular reason you enquire?
-
That's all very hush hush like so much in this case Robbie. They could very well have acted as intermediaries or may even have recommended Duarte for all we know, these lawyers have tentacles everywhere.
Any particular reason you enquire?
I was just wondering if CR had done the Portugal case CFA or pro bono too.
-
If the money is paid by the papers and handed to CR they might keep a share and the rest goes to the Madeleine Fund. With that situation it could be said the papers paid CR.
Why? CR were not parties to the contract that formed the out of court settlement.
The parties to that contract were the McCanns and The Press. CR were only advisors, draftsmen, negotiators and possibly stakeholders.
In simple terms with the two parties to the contract who was buying what and who was selling what?
Join up the dots.
-
The law on CFA's was changed in 2013 . As a firm which does a substantial amount of work using CFA Carter-Ruck submitted a memorandum supporting such agreements. They quote Gerry McCann;
As our client Dr Gerry McCann told the audience at the International Bar Association conference in Madrid on 6 October 2009:
“It is very important that ordinary people like ourselves do have legal representation. I’m not sure we could have gone through this without the CFA. This kind of arrangement should continue in the UK.”
....2.14 In the media context, for example we have represented on CFAs:
Kate and Gerry McCann.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/Carter_Ruck_submission_and_Appendices_on_Legal_Aid_Bill_14_9_11.PDF
-
The law on CFA's was changed in 2013 . As a firm which does a substantial amount of work using CFA Carter-Ruck submitted a memorandum supporting such agreements. They quote Gerry McCann;
As our client Dr Gerry McCann told the audience at the International Bar Association conference in Madrid on 6 October 2009:
“It is very important that ordinary people like ourselves do have legal representation. I’m not sure we could have gone through this without the CFA. This kind of arrangement should continue in the UK.”
....2.14 In the media context, for example we have represented on CFAs:
Kate and Gerry McCann.
https://www.carter-ruck.com/images/uploads/documents/Carter_Ruck_submission_and_Appendices_on_Legal_Aid_Bill_14_9_11.PDF
Beggars the question as to what arrangement was put in place to pay Isabel Duarte for her failed libel suit? The ironic part about this is that damages won suing the British press were probably used via the Maddie Fund to pay the Portuguese lawyers. The truth about all this will no doubt remain hidden.
-
Beggars the question as to what arrangement was put in place to pay Isabel Duarte for her failed libel suit? The ironic part about this is that damages won suing the British press were probably used via the Maddie Fund to pay the Portuguese lawyers. The truth about all this will no doubt remain hidden.
Was she not on "pay as you go"?.
CFAs not being permissible in Portugal.
-
Beggars the question as to what arrangement was put in place to pay Isabel Duarte for her failed libel suit? The ironic part about this is that damages won suing the British press were probably used via the Maddie Fund to pay the Portuguese lawyers. The truth about all this will no doubt remain hidden.
In the Fund accounts Yr/E 31/03/2017 there is a sum of £ 51,718 owing to 'Other creditors'. Included in that is money owed to Isabel Duarte for her work on the libel trial against Amaral.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/company/06248215/filing-history
-
I wouldn't be surprised if there is money owed to Goncalo Amaral too now as I can't expect him to have to pay all his court costs when winning (3 times).
This is regardless of any EHCR appeal as that has nothing to do with the financial conclusions of the completed cases IMO.
-
I wouldn't be surprised if there is money owed to Goncalo Amaral too now as I can't expect him to have to pay all his court costs when winning (3 times).
This is regardless of any EHCR appeal as that has nothing to do with the financial conclusions of the completed cases IMO.
How are the McCanns going to pay Amaral anyway as it is their debt and not that of the Maddie Fund? Will Rothley Towers be appearing on Purple Bricks any time soon??
ETA. There's always the possibility of some creative accounting though I suppose. *%6^
-
How are the McCanns going to pay Amaral anyway as it is their debt and not that of the Maddie Fund? Will Rothley Towers be appearing on Purple Bricks any time soon??
ETA. There's always the possibility of some creative accounting though I suppose. *%6^
Maybe they’ll come to some arrangement like Tony Bennett has where they pay Amaral £3.50 a month until the debt is settled?
-
maybe kate will write another million pound best seller
-
maybe kate will write another million pound best seller
I would think that boat has floated now unless it is about her continued battle suing Amaral. I can't see that being a best seller, can you?
-
I would think that boat has floated now unless it is about her continued battle suing Amaral. I can't see that being a best seller, can you?
Yes I can....along with everything else that has happened..and I believe they have been offered large sums to appear on chat shows
-
I would think that boat has floated now unless it is about her continued battle suing Amaral. I can't see that being a best seller, can you?
I would agree. The public have had access to the files and everything that goes with them for some time now, even their own son is questioning the whole sordid episode apparently..
-
maybe kate will write another million pound best seller
What about a book explaining what really did happen that night?
-
I would agree. The public have had access to the files and everything that goes with them for some time now, even their own son is questioning the whole sordid episode apparently..
Good for him, though I'd have thought he'd have been thoroughly brainwashed by now.
-
What about a book explaining what really did happen that night?
Perhaps a step too far 8(0(*
-
I would agree. The public have had access to the files and everything that goes with them for some time now, even their own son is questioning the whole sordid episode apparently..
Can you exlain your post please ?
-
Perhaps a step too far 8(0(*
That could be the title "Madeleine McCann: A step too far"
-
One thing I am sure of is that the McCanns won't be using their own money to pay towards Goncalo Amarals legal fees they will use the fund. Why do I think this, well they used the fund to sue (and lose).
This of course is my opinion, should anyone care.
-
How are the McCanns going to pay Amaral anyway as it is their debt and not that of the Maddie Fund? Will Rothley Towers be appearing on Purple Bricks any time soon??
ETA. There's always the possibility of some creative accounting though I suppose. *%6^
It does not need to be particularly creative.
One side will say "how very dare they" the other side will say "they would not do that"
Nevertheless there is perfectly reasonable simple and legal way to do it.
At Christmas I will give an orange to anyone who works it out. ?{)(**
-
I would agree. The public have had access to the files and everything that goes with them for some time now, even their own son is questioning the whole sordid episode apparently..
I have asked Angelo to explain this post but appreciate he may not have seen my request.
Does any other member have information about this claim that " even their own son is questioning the whole sordid episode apparently"?
-
I would agree. The public have had access to the files and everything that goes with them for some time now, even their own son is questioning the whole sordid episode apparently..
What absolute rubbish...no cite as usual...that really is a disgrace to claim such as that.... almost certainly libelous
-
I have asked Angelo to explain this post but appreciate he may not have seen my request.
Does any other member have information about this claim that " even their own son is questioning the whole sordid episode apparently"?
Of course not... Angelo is making things up
-
What absolute rubbish...no cite as usual...that really is a disgrace to claim such as that.... almost certainly libelous
It is not impossible so we should just wait for an explanation.
-
One thing I am sure of is that the McCanns won't be using their own money to pay towards Goncalo Amarals legal fees they will use the fund. Why do I think this, well they used the fund to sue (and lose).
This of course is my opinion, should anyone care.
Where did the remaining money in the fund come from given the evidence that there have been occasions when the fund had been depleted to the edge of extinction?
I seem to remember something about money paid in libel settlements being paid directly into the fund and I seem to remember something about the considerable proceeds of a best selling book also being paid in.
In my opinion no-one "owes" Goncalo Amaral the time of day let alone a brass farthing. When Amaral similarly lost a libel action and was ordered to pay all court fees as a result, the money to be paid went to the Portuguese State and lawyers.
I understand that Amaral's lawyers fees in this case have been met by charitable public donations. ^*&&
-
It is not impossible so we should just wait for an explanation.
There won't be an explanation....its rubbish..
-
What about a book explaining what really did happen that night?
Kate has already done that
-
It is not impossible so we should just wait for an explanation.
Who's being libeled now ?
-
It is not impossible so we should just wait for an explanation.
Don't you think if it was true we would have heard about it
-
Don't you think if it was true we would have heard about it
I would like to know to whom S*** has expressed this questioning of the whole sordid episode and how Angelo knows of this.
-
It does not need to be particularly creative.
One side will say "how very dare they" the other side will say "they would not do that"
Nevertheless there is perfectly reasonable simple and legal way to do it.
At Christmas I will give an orange to anyone who works it out. ?{)(**
Director's loan x 2?
-
I would like to know to whom S*** has expressed this questioning of the whole sordid episode and how Angelo knows of this.
My that’s fairly got your knickers in a twist. Imagine if it was true 8**8:/:
-
My that’s fairly got your knickers in a twist. Imagine if it was true 8**8:/:
Sometimes you have rather an infantile way of expressing yourself.
Is it true?
-
Sometimes you have rather an infantile way of expressing yourself.
Is it true?
There are rumours. As to their veracity I have no idea.
-
There are rumours. As to their veracity I have no idea.
(&^&
-
There are rumours. As to their veracity I have no idea.
It seems that rumours are more than enough to wind some up ?{)(**
-
It seems that rumours are more than enough to wind some up ?{)(**
Is this now a forum where cites are no longer required and rumours can be posted by a moderator with the intention of "winding up" posters.
Excellent.
-
Is this now a forum where cites are no longer required and rumours can be posted by a moderator with the intention of "winding up" posters.
Excellent.
Could be. Are you going to stamp your little foot and leave in a huff?
-
Is this now a forum where cites are no longer required and rumours can be posted by a moderator with the intention of "winding up" posters.
Excellent.
I don't agree it winds up posters...it just makes the moderator look a bit of a fool
-
Is this now a forum where cites are no longer required and rumours can be posted by a moderator with the intention of "winding up" posters.
Excellent.
The whole nine yards is based on an unfounded rumour of an abduction.
-
I don't agree it winds up posters...it just makes the moderator look a bit of a fool
It amuses some to believe thus.
Not wound up at all.
Bemused is a more apt description.
-
The whole nine yards is based on an unfounded rumour of an abduction.
In your opinion....based on solid evidence imo....and SY it seems
-
In your opinion....based on solid evidence imo....and SY it seems
Still to be resolved,so its still unfounded.
-
Still to be resolved,so its still unfounded.
Based on solid evidence IMO
-
Director's loan x 2?
That would work, it would need to be recorded but does not appear to be and would need to be paid back.
There is a way of taking the money out and not repaying it without attracting unwarranted attention provided it is set up properly in advance. I do rather suspect that it has been so set up.
So in the mean time have a consolation tangerine and a few hazel nuts plus a virtual Bellini for at least having a go
8(0(*
-
That would work, it would need to be recorded but does not appear to be and would need to be paid back.
There is a way of taking the money out and not repaying it without attracting unwarranted attention provided it is set up properly in advance. I do rather suspect that it has been so set up.
So in the mean time have a consolation tangerine and a few hazel nuts plus a virtual Bellini for at least having a go
8(0(*
I'd be interested to know how you think it could work in the absence of salaries & dividends. (Cheapskate 8(0(*)
-
Kate has already done that
I mean what really really happened.
-
Can you exlain your post please ?
Didn't Sean ask his parents why they had hidden Maddie?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/son-claims-hid-madeleine-kate-mccann-court
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10953524/Kate-McCann-my-son-asked-me-whether-we-hid-Maddies-body.html
-
Didn't Sean ask his parents why they had hidden Maddie?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/son-claims-hid-madeleine-kate-mccann-court
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10953524/Kate-McCann-my-son-asked-me-whether-we-hid-Maddies-body.html
@)(++(*
So "questioning the whole sordid episode apparently" is actually S*** asking his mother about Amarals ridiculous "hiding the body theory" which he had overhead in a news item four years ago.
Yes indeed S*** was questioning the whole sordid episode but it was Amarals sordid theory being questioned.
IMO your original post was at best unintentionally misleading, at worst quite intentional.
-
Didn't Sean ask his parents why they had hidden Maddie?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/son-claims-hid-madeleine-kate-mccann-court
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10953524/Kate-McCann-my-son-asked-me-whether-we-hid-Maddies-body.html
so nothing to do with the files,,.....just the boy saying...what is that nasty man saying about you....thats that sorted
-
so nothing to do with the files,,.....just the boy saying...what is that nasty man saying about you....thats that sorted
Have we sorted out your claim that CR worked Pro Bono for the McCanns yet.
That is the title of the topic and the reason I keep asking as you keep refusing to give a cite to that claim. Just because the McCanns didn't have to pay because the papers caved in doesn't mean Carter Ruck worked pro bono.
-
Have we sorted out your claim that CR worked Pro Bono for the McCanns yet.
That is the title of the topic and the reason I keep asking as you keep refusing to give a cite to that claim. Just because the McCanns didn't have to pay because the papers caved in doesn't mean Carter Ruck worked pro bono.
Yes we have...I've supplied the explanation and cites several times...Angelo and Brietta have also made reference to pro bono work.
-
Have we sorted out your claim that CR worked Pro Bono for the McCanns yet.
That is the title of the topic and the reason I keep asking as you keep refusing to give a cite to that claim. Just because the McCanns didn't have to pay because the papers caved in doesn't mean Carter Ruck worked pro bono.
Pro bono means no-one pays. Both Carter-Ruck and the McCanns have referred to a CFA or no win no fee. None of them have suggested that Carter-Ruck worked pro bono.
-
Pro bono means no-one pays. Both Carter-Ruck and the McCanns have referred to a CFA or no win no fee. None of them have suggested that Carter-Ruck worked pro bono.
So far we have given a poster cites for them working with a CFA and being on a retainer. Both of these would incur costs to the mcCanns should they lose. Other posters have been unable to provide cites that the agreement was pro bono despite many times of asking.
-
So far we have given a poster cites for them working with a CFA and being on a retainer. Both of these would incur costs to the mcCanns should they lose. Other posters have been unable to provide cites that the agreement was pro bono despite many times of asking.
Catching on. 8(>((
-
Forum rules require people to back up their statements. If they refuse or the cite they provide isn't adequate then they haven't complied with the rule.
-
Forum rules require people to back up their statements. If they refuse or the cite they provide isn't adequate then they haven't complied with the rule.
Who judges if the cite is inadequate? Isn't there a forum rule that says no one is obliged to answer any post, or to be constantly harassed? If you think Davel hasn't provided a cite and it's that important to you (two weeks after what amounted to a fairly throwaway comment that has been seized on and blown up out of all proportion).
-
I mean what really really happened.
You are suggesting Kate is lying.....with no evidence to support you statement
-
Who judges if the cite is inadequate? Isn't there a forum rule that says no one is obliged to answer any post, or to be constantly harassed? If you think Davel hasn't provided a cite and it's that important to you (two weeks after what amounted to a fairly throwaway comment that has been seized on and blown up out of all proportion).
A good point. Many's the time on here I've seen someone ask for a cite and when one is provided, dismiss it out of hand with some excuse or another.
-
Perhaps it's time to knock this ridiculous demand for cites on the head. If you're having a conversation with someone in the pub you wouldn't keep asking for cites, and really that's all this forum is - a chat forum, not a courtroom.
-
You are suggesting Kate is lying.....with no evidence to support you statement
There is a difference between telling the truth and telling what really really happened.
-
There is a difference between telling the truth and telling what really really happened.
The truth is what happened...why are they different..iyo
-
A short reminder to all posters to remain on topic and to respect other members point of view which might not necessarily coincide with your own. Please keep comments relevant and amicable. TY
-
Perhaps it's time to knock this ridiculous demand for cites on the head. If you're having a conversation with someone in the pub you wouldn't keep asking for cites, and really that's all this forum is - a chat forum, not a courtroom.
Trouble is that some will claim the most outrageous things as true and cites are a way of holding them in check.
-
Trouble is that some will claim the most outrageous things as true and cites are a way of holding them in check.
Oh dear, so what if they do? It’s almost like you care! @)(++(*
-
Perhaps it's time to knock this ridiculous demand for cites on the head. If you're having a conversation with someone in the pub you wouldn't keep asking for cites, and really that's all this forum is - a chat forum, not a courtroom.
There are facts and there are opinions. People tend to present their opinions as facts. They also tend to embellish the facts so they support their opinions. That's why cites are necessary so everyone can see which are which.
-
Perhaps it's time to knock this ridiculous demand for cites on the head. If you're having a conversation with someone in the pub you wouldn't keep asking for cites, and really that's all this forum is - a chat forum, not a courtroom.
At the end of the day posters make claims and those claims are either true or false. As this forum is fact based, the only feasible way that truth can be distinguished from falsehoods is if cites are provided. I agree that this is not foolproof but it is all that is available to us in most cases. What we will always weed out however are false malicious claims which are only posted to cause offence.
Hope this helps all concerned.
ETA ...what we don't need however is goading when cites are not forthcoming.
-
At the end of the day posters make claims and those claims are either true or false. As this forum is fact based, the only feasible way that truth can be distinguished from falsehoods is if cites are provided. I agree that this is not foolproof but it is all that is available to us in most cases. What we will always weed out however are false malicious claims which are only posted to cause offence.
Hope this helps all concerned.
Perhaps you could advise what to do in a situation where a cite or cites are provided but they don’t meet with the approval of those doing the demanding, as has been the case for the last two weeks, with Davel being constantly badgered by multiple forum members on multiple threads?
-
Oh dear, so what if they do? It’s almost like you care! @)(++(*
You may be happy for falsehoods to be passed off, unchallenged, as fact, but I'm not.
-
There are facts and there are opinions. People tend to present their opinions as facts. They also tend to embellish the facts so they support their opinions. That's why cites are necessary so everyone can see which are which.
If we just accepted that we are mostly all anonymous forum members and that what we write is mostly opinion, and therefore should always be taken with a pinch of salt, and not too seriously in any case this would remove most of the po-faced demands for cites which are usually asked for in an attempt to point score anyway.
-
You may be happy for falsehoods to be passed off, unchallenged, as fact, but I'm not.
Wow, you actually DO care! Who knew...?
-
Didn't Sean ask his parents why they had hidden Maddie?
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/08/son-claims-hid-madeleine-kate-mccann-court
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10953524/Kate-McCann-my-son-asked-me-whether-we-hid-Maddies-body.html
I think the answer is no.....the phrase used by the paper does not match what Kate is reported to have said in the article....and we have a fairly accurate account of what Kate said in the court transcript....and it doesn't support the claim you have made
-
Wow, you actually DO care! Who knew...?
I don't care about much of the trivia that is argued back and forth, ( the title of this thread is a good example), but when the truth is known it should be recognised as such.
-
I don't care about much of the trivia that is argued back and forth, ( the title of this thread is a good example), but when the truth is known it should be recognised as such.
the thing is, a cite can be provided and then rejected for any number of reasons, eg:
1) it was is the Sun, lower than a snake’s belly.
2) it was in a tabloid - lower than a dog’s belly
3) it was in a newspaper - they are all in the pay of the McCanns anyway
4) it quotes unnamed sources - therefore obviously made up by a journalist
5) it was said by Andy Redwood and he’s not part of Op Grange anymore
6) it was said by a police officer but clearly they meant the opposite of what they said (read between the lines goddamit!)
7) it was said by a member of the Tapas Group - can’t be trusted, except when they are clearly telling the truth (depends what point you are trying to prove).
8) it was in Kate’s Book - soemtimes a reliable source, sometimes not depending on what you’re trying to prove at any given time.
ETC
IMO
-
the thing is, a cite can be provided and then rejected for any number of reasons, eg:
1) it was is the Sun, lower than a snake’s belly.
2) it was in a tabloid - lower than a dog’s belly
3) it was in a newspaper - they are all in the pay of the McCanns anyway
4) it quotes unnamed sources - therefore obviously made up by a journalist
5) it was said by Andy Redwood and he’s not part of Op Grange anymore
6) it was said by a police officer but clearly they meant the opposite of what they said (read between the lines goddamit!)
7) it was said by a member of the Tapas Group - can’t be trusted, except when they are clearly telling the truth (depends what point you are trying to prove).
8) it was in Kate’s Book - soemtimes a reliable source, sometimes not depending on what you’re trying to prove at any given time.
ETC
IMO
Quite...the McCann's are not suspects in either investigation....a cite is given from senior policeman....but the cite us considered not acceptable...so what is the point in asking or providing a cite
-
I think the answer is no.....the phrase used by the paper does not match what Kate is reported to have said in the article....and we have a fairly accurate account of what Kate said in the court transcript....and it doesn't support the claim you have made
From the libel trial transcript...
Kate Healy (McCann) - In October last year my son Sean asked me why did Mr. Amaral said that we had hid Madeleine's body. I told him that Mr. Amaral says many silly things.
Judge - How did he know about that?
Kate Healy (McCann) I think he heard it on the radio, in the school bus.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.msg172157#msg172157
-
There's no such thing, either the court is involved or it isn't. In the McCann case, a writ was raised and served on the defendants. The judge would hear both sides and ask them to go away and agree terms between themselves. They did that and came back to court where the agreement was made binding.
Could we have a cite to support your claim...the judge listened to both sides....then asked them to go away and agree terms between themselves...
Imo...the express capitulated before the hearing and the deal was already done
-
From the libel trial transcript...
Kate Healy (McCann) - In October last year my son Sean asked me why did Mr. Amaral said that we had hid Madeleine's body. I told him that Mr. Amaral says many silly things.
Judge - How did he know about that?
Kate Healy (McCann) I think he heard it on the radio, in the school bus.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.msg172157#msg172157
So Sean is saying why is amaral saying this....he is not questioning the McCann's account
-
From the libel trial transcript...
Kate Healy (McCann) - In October last year my son Sean asked me why did Mr. Amaral said that we had hid Madeleine's body. I told him that Mr. Amaral says many silly things.
Judge - How did he know about that?
Kate Healy (McCann) I think he heard it on the radio, in the school bus.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4745.msg172157#msg172157
That was a few years ago. He will doubtless have been exposed to more than that since he went to secondary school
-
That was a few years ago. He will doubtless have been exposed to more than that since he went to secondary school
Are you rejecting this cite, on the basis it is out of date? Add that excuse to the list above then.
-
So there is no cite to support Sean from questioning the McCann's account but a cite questioning amaral account
-
Who judges if the cite is inadequate? Isn't there a forum rule that says no one is obliged to answer any post, or to be constantly harassed? If you think Davel hasn't provided a cite and it's that important to you (two weeks after what amounted to a fairly throwaway comment that has been seized on and blown up out of all proportion).
In the first instance the members decide, failing that it is referred to the moderators and if that fails an editor or admin will adjudicate.
-
Are you rejecting this cite, on the basis it is out of date? Add that excuse to the list above then.
Did I say I rejected it?
-
Did I say I rejected it?
It would seem so, by commenting on the fact that it was a few years ago you seem to be suggesting that by now the situation will have changed, and that Sean will indeed be “questioning the whole sordid business” as claimed by Angelo. All IMO, feel free to deny.
-
It would seem so, by commenting on the fact that it was a few years ago you seem to be suggesting that by now the situation will have changed, and that Sean will indeed be “questioning the whole sordid business” as claimed by Angelo. All IMO, feel free to deny.
You seem to have a strange level of comprehension. Never mind, whatever make you happy.
-
You seem to have a strange level of comprehension. Never mind, whatever make you happy.
No denial then. OK.
-
Could we have a cite to support your claim...the judge listened to both sides....then asked them to go away and agree terms between themselves...
Imo...the express capitulated before the hearing and the deal was already done
Perhaps you could explain how the judge became involved?
-
No denial then. OK.
Goading.... why do you invent your own version of what is being said- then twist it to ask questions and when no one answered to your satisfaction you answer it yourself and it shows your intended 'victim' n a bad way.
nasty IMO
Seriously John this is of no relevance other than to deflect from the thread and goad posters.
-
Perhaps you could explain how the judge became involved?
I already have done...perhaps you should read the posts
An out of court settlement may or may not involve the court..
It may be enforced by a court order which would involve a court..I have already posted this and already posted a cite to support it
Now Angelo can provide the cite I have asked for
-
So far we have given a poster cites for them working with a CFA and being on a retainer. Both of these would incur costs to the mcCanns should they lose. Other posters have been unable to provide cites that the agreement was pro bono despite many times of asking.
Bump
This being the 18th page? still no reply. I think readers of this forum have got the jist of who is who and the supporters agenda. ^*&&
No cite will be forthcoming because there is none.
THE SUPPORTERS will play on words, thinking it makes them look clever, it only makes a nonsense of the McCanns version of abduction claim.
-
Bump
This being the 18th page? still no reply. I think readers of this forum have got the jist of who is who and the supporters agenda. ^*&&
No cite will be forthcoming because there is none.
THE SUPPORTERS will play on words, thinking it makes them look clever, it only makes a nonsense of the McCanns version of abduction claim.
I think anyone who matters understands the McCann's are not suspects in either investigation...cites already provided..
You need to understand it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think.... absolutely nothing
-
I think anyone who matters understands the McCann's are not suspects in either investigation...cites already provided..
You need to understand it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think.... absolutely nothing
That clarifies that then it has become an exercise in futility. Presumably you will not need assistance to find the exit considering by your own admission your talents are now surplus to requirements....... &^&*%
-
I think anyone who matters understands the McCann's are not suspects in either investigation...cites already provided..
You need to understand it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think.... absolutely nothing
IN YOUR OPINION... you begin this post with "I think anyone who matters understands"
then you say "it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think.... absolutely nothing"
Confused dot org ^*&&
Insulting readers who do not support the McCann... ^*&&
-
IN YOUR OPINION... you begin this post with "I think anyone who matters understands"
then you say "it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think.... absolutely nothing"
Confused dot org ^*&&
Insulting readers who do not support the McCann... ^*&&
clear as mud or confused, it depends on what you think. Which didn't matter anyway.
-
I already have done...perhaps you should read the posts
An out of court settlement may or may not involve the court..
It may be enforced by a court order which would involve a court..I have already posted this and already posted a cite to support it
Now Angelo can provide the cite I have asked for
Was the court involved before agreement was reached?
-
IN YOUR OPINION... you begin this post with "I think anyone who matters understands"
then you say "it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think.... absolutely nothing"
Confused dot org ^*&&
Insulting readers who do not support the McCann... ^*&&
Note...I said it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think..nor posters...supporters or sceptics...perhaps you are under the misapprehension you are making a difference..
What matters is what the dual investigation think...and they have each told us the McCann's are not suspects
-
Was the court involved before agreement was reached?
Imo yes...and Angelo is merely stating his opinion...not facts
-
Imo yes...and Angelo is merely stating his opinion...not facts
So how did the court become involved?
-
Note...I said it matters not a jot what readers of this forum think..nor posters...supporters or sceptics...perhaps you are under the misapprehension you are making a difference..
What matters is what the dual investigation think...and they have each told us the McCann's are not suspects
You seem to be saying "what they say is what they think". They may actually say something but think something else. There is always going to be a degree of uncertainty.
Even if someone says "I think such and such" doesn't mean they are telling the truth either.
-
So how did the court become involved?
I've answered this already...the out of court settlement may have been enforced by a court order
-
You seem to be saying "what they say is what they think". They may actually say something but think something else. There is always going to be a degree of uncertainty.
Even if someone says "I think such and such" doesn't mean they are telling the truth either.
I am providing a cite to support my statement...a very clear cite...but it obviously isn't enough...so cites are basically useless
-
I've answered this already...the out of court settlement may have been enforced by a court order
Hoe does someone apply for this court order then?
-
Hoe does someone apply for this court order then?
The answer is obvious...let's see Angelo's cite first...it seems the necessity to provide a cite is only important if the poster is a supporter
-
The answer is obvious...let's see Angelo's cite first...it seems the necessity to provide a cite is only important if the poster is a supporter
This thread exists solely because of your stated opinion that Carter-Ruck worked on the McCanns v Express Newspapers pro bono. Therefore my only interest is in discovering what facts you are basing your opinion on.
How did they get a judge and court time? How does that happen?
-
This thread exists solely because of your stated opinion that Carter-Ruck worked on the McCanns v Express Newspapers pro bono. Therefore my only interest is in discovering what facts you are basing your opinion on.
How did they get a judge and court time? How does that happen?
I think davel is confused. CR dont do anything for free, they knew when they took on the McCanns that they would get their fee one way or another.
-
I think davel is confused. CR dont do anything for free, they knew when they took on the McCanns that they would get their fee one way or another.
You would almost think it was an attempt to paint the McCanns as being so virtuous that even CR would support them for free.
-
You would almost think it was an attempt to paint the McCanns as being so virtuous that even CR would support them for free.
Let's face it, lots of people and many corporations have made a few quid out of Maddie's story and that is the bit I find utterly despicable.
-
Let's face it, lots of people and many corporations have made a few quid out of Maddie's story and that is the bit I find utterly despicable.
Including a best seller.
-
I think davel is confused. CR dont do anything for free, they knew when they took on the McCanns that they would get their fee one way or another.
Then it is you who is confused...I've constantly said CR were paid by the newspapers
-
Including a best seller.
It happens
-
You would almost think it was an attempt to paint the McCanns as being so virtuous that even CR would support them for free.
No .....the McCann's had such a solid case that CR were prepared to represent them on a no win..no fee basis...but as the express capitulated...the CFA was not necessary
-
Could we have a cite to support your claim...the judge listened to both sides....then asked them to go away and agree terms between themselves...
Imo...the express capitulated before the hearing and the deal was already done
Still no cite from Angelo....
-
No .....the McCann's had such a solid case that CR were prepared to represent them on a no win..no fee basis...but as the express capitulated...the CFA was not necessary
But they didn’t work for free or pro bono.
You know the old saying Davel....when you have an omelette on your face admit defeat.
-
But they didn’t work for free or pro bono.
You know the old saying Davel....when you have an omelette on your face admit defeat.
the did some initial work pro bono...imo.....as have alraedy explained....other fees were recovered from the newspaers...as i have alraedy explained
-
No .....the McCann's had such a solid case that CR were prepared to represent them on a no win..no fee basis...but as the express capitulated...the CFA was not necessary
A CFA is necessary before a legal firm begin work in order to ensure they receive payment. In my opinion Gerry was confusing a CFA with an ATE insurance, which is normally put in place at the same time as a CFA.
The McCanns consulted Carter-Ruck in January 2008. It was agreed that CR would take the case on a CFA basis. That CFA would have been in place before any action was taken at all. It took two months of wrangling before Express Newspapers capitulated, by which time an application had been made to the court. That's why both parties attended the court in March.
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
-
A CFA is necessary before a legal firm begin work in order to ensure they receive payment. In my opinion Gerry was confusing a CFA with an ATE insurance, which is normally put in place at the same time as a CFA.
The McCanns consulted Carter-Ruck in January 2008. It was agreed that CR would take the case on a CFA basis. That CFA would have been in place before any action was taken at all. It took two months of wrangling before Express Newspapers capitulated, by which time an application had been made to the court. That's why both parties attended the court in March.
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
There would be work done before a decision would be made to take the case with a CFA...this work would be free of charge.....or in its broader sense...pro bono
-
A CFA is necessary before a legal firm begin work in order to ensure they receive payment. In my opinion Gerry was confusing a CFA with an ATE insurance, which is normally put in place at the same time as a CFA.
The McCanns consulted Carter-Ruck in January 2008. It was agreed that CR would take the case on a CFA basis. That CFA would have been in place before any action was taken at all. It took two months of wrangling before Express Newspapers capitulated, by which time an application had been made to the court. That's why both parties attended the court in March.
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
do you have a cite thath an application was made to court to hear the case...imo there was no application to court as the Express case was so weak they would ahve no defence...and would have agreed to settle out of court..
so...cite please....your post is almost entirely opinion posted as fact......after all your posting about forum rules..
your recent post.....
There are facts and there are opinions. People tend to present their opinions as facts. They also tend to embellish the facts so they support their opinions. That's why cites are necessary so everyone can see which are which.
-
A CFA is necessary before a legal firm begin work in order to ensure they receive payment. In my opinion Gerry was confusing a CFA with an ATE insurance, which is normally put in place at the same time as a CFA.
The McCanns consulted Carter-Ruck in January 2008. It was agreed that CR would take the case on a CFA basis. That CFA would have been in place before any action was taken at all. It took two months of wrangling before Express Newspapers capitulated, by which time an application had been made to the court. That's why both parties attended the court in March.
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
Please provide a cite substantiating your claim regarding the libel damages paid by Associated Newspapers and Madeleine's Fund.
Is this in reference to the damages paid to the McCann holiday companions?
-
Well the good thing is we are asking G-unit for a cite. We might be lucky with this request.
-
There would be work done before a decision would be made to take the case with a CFA...this work would be free of charge.....or in its broader sense...pro bono
What work? The CFA was discussed, offered and accepted at the first meeting between the McCanns and Carter-Ruck according to Kate McCann.
We had a meeting with Adam Tudor, who was extremely helpful and went through the pros and cons of legal action in considerable detail. Adam and his partners agreed to take on the case on a no-win, no-fee basis and that certainly made our decision a lot easier. The thought of having to spend potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds to get justice would have been a major deterrent. [madeleine]
-
Please provide a cite substantiating your claim regarding the libel damages paid by Associated Newspapers and Madeleine's Fund.
Is this in reference to the damages paid to the McCann holiday companions?
It is true that Associated Newspapers paid compensation to the McCanns and printed a front page apology to them in the Evening Standard.
-
There would be work done before a decision would be made to take the case with a CFA...this work would be free of charge.....or in its broader sense...pro bono
Do you have a cite for this pro bono work being carried out? Or are you just making this up?
If there is no cite it should be highlighted as speculation only. ie making it up.
There is no mention of 'free meetings' or the word pro bono in Gerry or Kates discussion of this.
-
It is true that Associated Newspapers paid compensation to the McCanns and printed a front page apology to them in the Evening Standard.
As far as I know ALL libel payments from the press both awarded to the McCanns and to the group with whom they were on holiday were paid into Madeleine's Fund.
Your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633 has muddied the waters on that and therefore demands a direct cite as already requested. I will be obliged to you either for the provision of one in support of your statement ... or that you amend your original post to reflect the true situation.
-
What work? The CFA was discussed, offered and accepted at the first meeting between the McCanns and Carter-Ruck according to Kate McCann.
We had a meeting with Adam Tudor, who was extremely helpful and went through the [ censored word ] and cons of legal action in considerable detail. Adam and his partners agreed to take on the case on a no-win, no-fee basis and that certainly made our decision a lot easier. The thought of having to spend potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds to get justice would have been a major deterrent. [madeleine]
when was this meeting...It would be after CR had considered and put some thoughts into the case..imo....i have seen a staement where CR have a discussion between themselves before decideng to take a cse pro bone...tehy obviously need to look at the merits of teh case first
-
What work? The CFA was discussed, offered and accepted at the first meeting between the McCanns and Carter-Ruck according to Kate McCann.
We had a meeting with Adam Tudor, who was extremely helpful and went through the [ censored word ] and cons of legal action in considerable detail. Adam and his partners agreed to take on the case on a no-win, no-fee basis and that certainly made our decision a lot easier. The thought of having to spend potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds to get justice would have been a major deterrent. [madeleine]
Where does it ay this was the first meeting...it doesnt...so cite for first meeting
-
A CFA is necessary before a legal firm begin work in order to ensure they receive payment. In my opinion Gerry was confusing a CFA with an ATE insurance, which is normally put in place at the same time as a CFA.
The McCanns consulted Carter-Ruck in January 2008. It was agreed that CR would take the case on a CFA basis. That CFA would have been in place before any action was taken at all. It took two months of wrangling before Express Newspapers capitulated, by which time an application had been made to the court. That's why both parties attended the court in March.
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
cite for point in red...second request
-
What work? The CFA was discussed, offered and accepted at the first meeting between the McCanns and Carter-Ruck according to Kate McCann.
We had a meeting with Adam Tudor, who was extremely helpful and went through the [ censored word ] and cons of legal action in considerable detail. Adam and his partners agreed to take on the case on a no-win, no-fee basis and that certainly made our decision a lot easier. The thought of having to spend potentially hundreds of thousands of pounds to get justice would have been a major deterrent. [madeleine]
from the CR website..
Do I have to go to court to obtain redress for libel or slander?
Not necessarily. You first need to write a letter of complaint (or ideally instruct media lawyers specialising in defamation) under what is called the Defamation Pre-Action Protocol. The courts are keen for parties to try to resolve things without going to court, as this will save costs and time. Many disputes are solved without the need for court proceedings.
so the first stage would not be going to court...as you seemto think...it would be writing a letter...as i have previously pointed out...as the start of Pre Action Protocol....no court action is launched until an attempt to settle out of court is made...those are the facts...
Defamation Pre action Protocol.
The Defamation Pre Action Protocol is a code of practice which the parties to a dispute should follow when litigation needs to be considered. The protocol encourages both parties to disclose information to enable each other to understand their case and to promote the prospect of an early resolution. If a claim proceeds to litigation the Court can consider the extent to which the protocol has been followed.
Letter of Claim
The claimant should notify the defendant of his or her claim in writing at the earliest opportunity. The letter of claim must include the following information:
Name of the claimant;
Sufficient details to identify the publication or broadcast which contain the words complained of;
The words complained of;
The words complained of, the date of publication and a copy of the transcript of the words complained of should also be enclosed;
The letter of claim should describe the nature of the remedies sought;
Any facts or matters which make you identifiable from the words complained of and;
Details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the words complained of and or any particular damage caused by the words complained of.
Defendants Response to the Letter of Claim
The defendant should provide a full response to the letter as soon as reasonably possible. If the defendant considers they will not be able to respond within 14 days, or a shorter time specified in the letter, then they need to write to the claimant’s solicitor specifying when they intend to respond.
The Response needs to include the following:
To what extent the claim is accepted;
Whether anymore information is required as to the claim;
If the defendant accepts the claim in whole or part then the defendant needs to indicate the remedies it intends to offer;
If more information is required then the defendant needs to specify exactly what more information is required to enable the defendant to deal with the claim;
If the claim is rejected then the defendant needs to explain the reasons why its rejected and an indication of the facts on which the defendant is likely to rely on and;
The defendant should also include in the response to the letter, what meaning the defendant attributes to the words complained of.
-
from the CR website..
Do I have to go to court to obtain redress for libel or slander?
Not necessarily. You first need to write a letter of complaint (or ideally instruct media lawyers specialising in defamation) under what is called the Defamation Pre-Action Protocol. The courts are keen for parties to try to resolve things without going to court, as this will save costs and time. Many disputes are solved without the need for court proceedings.
so the first stage would not be going to court...as you seemto think...it would be writing a letter...as i have previously pointed out...as the start of Pre Action Protocol....no court action is launched until an attempt to settle out of court is made...those are the facts...
Defamation Pre action Protocol.
The Defamation Pre Action Protocol is a code of practice which the parties to a dispute should follow when litigation needs to be considered. The protocol encourages both parties to disclose information to enable each other to understand their case and to promote the prospect of an early resolution. If a claim proceeds to litigation the Court can consider the extent to which the protocol has been followed.
Letter of Claim
The claimant should notify the defendant of his or her claim in writing at the earliest opportunity. The letter of claim must include the following information:
Name of the claimant;
Sufficient details to identify the publication or broadcast which contain the words complained of;
The words complained of;
The words complained of, the date of publication and a copy of the transcript of the words complained of should also be enclosed;
The letter of claim should describe the nature of the remedies sought;
Any facts or matters which make you identifiable from the words complained of and;
Details of any special facts relevant to the interpretation of the words complained of and or any particular damage caused by the words complained of.
Defendants Response to the Letter of Claim
The defendant should provide a full response to the letter as soon as reasonably possible. If the defendant considers they will not be able to respond within 14 days, or a shorter time specified in the letter, then they need to write to the claimant’s solicitor specifying when they intend to respond.
The Response needs to include the following:
To what extent the claim is accepted;
Whether anymore information is required as to the claim;
If the defendant accepts the claim in whole or part then the defendant needs to indicate the remedies it intends to offer;
If more information is required then the defendant needs to specify exactly what more information is required to enable the defendant to deal with the claim;
If the claim is rejected then the defendant needs to explain the reasons why its rejected and an indication of the facts on which the defendant is likely to rely on and;
The defendant should also include in the response to the letter, what meaning the defendant attributes to the words complained of.
Express Newspapers agreed to settle after a court date was set. In order for a court date to be set an application had to be made and a fee paid.
Associated Press agreed to settle before a court date was set. Therefore no application needed to be submitted to the Queen's Bench, and no-one needed to attend the court.
It's all in 'madeleine' by Kate McCann. In regard to Express Newspapers;
Adam and his partners agreed to take on the case on a no-win, no-fee basis.......It took a couple of months of legal to-ing and froing, but the Express Group finally conceded that their stories were untrue.
we also issued a formal complaint against Associated Newspapers......After a rather protracted series of negotiations we came to an agreement involving financial compensation and a front-page apology in the Standard.
-
Readers should be aware that the legal action against the McCanns occurred in 2008 and as such current legislation and/or protocols are not relevant to these proceedings.
-
As far as I know ALL libel payments from the press both awarded to the McCanns and to the group with whom they were on holiday were paid into Madeleine's Fund.
Your post http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633 has muddied the waters on that and therefore demands a direct cite as already requested. I will be obliged to you either for the provision of one in support of your statement ... or that you amend your original post to reflect the true situation.
Paid in by whom?
-
Express Newspapers agreed to settle after a court date was set. In order for a court date to be set an application had to be made and a fee paid.
Associated Press agreed to settle before a court date was set. Therefore no application needed to be submitted to the Queen's Bench, and no-one needed to attend the court.
It's all in 'madeleine' by Kate McCann. In regard to Express Newspapers;
Adam and his partners agreed to take on the case on a no-win, no-fee basis.......It took a couple of months of legal to-ing and froing, but the Express Group finally conceded that their stories were untrue.
we also issued a formal complaint against Associated Newspapers......After a rather protracted series of negotiations we came to an agreement involving financial compensation and a front-page apology in the Standard.
P
You have not provided a cite that libel action was submitted to court...imo an out of court settlement was made before court actions began
-
P
You have not provided a cite that libel action was submitted to court...imo an out of court settlement was made before court actions began
At no point did Carter-Ruck provide their services free;
Q210 Chairman: You reached a settlement with Associated Newspapers and with News International in the form of The News of the World, but you decided to go to court against The Daily Express.
Adam Tudor; We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com/2011/08/httpwww.html
Unless someone knows better, courts and judges aren't booked like meeting rooms. The fact that a court date was set means that an application was submitted and a date set for the hearing. Had Express Newspapers not settled a trial would have begun on that date.
-
At no point did Carter-Ruck provide their services free;
Q210 Chairman: You reached a settlement with Associated Newspapers and with News International in the form of The News of the World, but you decided to go to court against The Daily Express.
Adam Tudor; We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
http://steelmagnolia-mccannarchives.blogspot.com/2011/08/httpwww.html
Unless someone knows better, courts and judges aren't booked like meeting rooms. The fact that a court date was set means that an application was submitted and a date set for the hearing. Had Express Newspapers not settled a trial would have begun on that date.
The express settled out of court...you are suggesting they actually went to court and then settled....you have provided no cite to support your claim that the court hearing was to start the libel case..
The express solicitors would have seen all the claims and evidence from CR...they then decide to defend or not....if they decide to defend a date is set. Before that date the solicitors for the Express would spend hours ..days preparing their case...you are suggesting having done all this they walked into court and immediately capitulated...you are claiming all this as fact with no cite....far more likely that they settled out of court and the court was set simply to grant a court order re the out of court agreement
-
The express settled out of court...you are suggesting they actually went to court and then settled....you have provided no cite to support your claim that the court hearing was to start the libel case..
The express solicitors would have seen all the claims and evidence from CR...they then decide to defend or not....if they decide to defend a date is set. Before that date the solicitors for the Express would spend hours ..days preparing their case...you are suggesting having done all this they walked into court and immediately capitulated...you are claiming all this as fact with no cite....far more likely that they settled out of court and the court was set simply to grant a court order re the out of court agreement
The whole reason for going to court is to stop any backsliding in any out of court potential settlement. Nobody is going to hand out £100,000's to anyone without the threat of proceedings being there in the background. To think otherwise is delusional.
-
The whole reason for going to court is to stop any backsliding in any out of court potential settlement. Nobody is going to hand out £100,000's to anyone without the threat of proceedings being there in the background. To think otherwise is delusional.
The threat of proceedings in the background... precisely.....I don't think otherwise...and you still have not provided a cite for your claim
Imo CR only needed to threaten proceedings...the Express had no defence and no choice but to settle out of court
-
The threat of proceedings in the background... precisely.....I don't think otherwise...and you still have not provided a cite for your claim
Imo CR only needed to threaten proceedings...the Express had no defence and no choice but to settle out of court
On what basis would Carter Ruck be threatening proceedings?
Had the Express committed an actionable tort against CR?
-
On what basis would Carter Ruck be threatening proceedings?
Had the Express committed an actionable tort against CR?
CR would be bringing proceedings on behalf of the mccanns
-
The express settled out of court...you are suggesting they actually went to court and then settled....you have provided no cite to support your claim that the court hearing was to start the libel case..
The express solicitors would have seen all the claims and evidence from CR...they then decide to defend or not....if they decide to defend a date is set. Before that date the solicitors for the Express would spend hours ..days preparing their case...you are suggesting having done all this they walked into court and immediately capitulated...you are claiming all this as fact with no cite....far more likely that they settled out of court and the court was set simply to grant a court order re the out of court agreement
This secondary argument isn't really important, though, is it? The interesting bit is what Adam Tudor said;
We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
It is quite clear that Carter-Ruck were being paid for their work whichever way you look at it. They were paid by retainer or by a CFA. At no point did they offer or provide any work free of charge.
In order to be described as 'pro bono' the solicitor's work has to be done without payment being made by anyone, client or defendant.
That's my last word on the subject unless someone can find a definition of 'pro bono' which differs from this;
professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
-
This secondary argument isn't really important, though, is it? The interesting bit is what Adam Tudor said;
We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
It is quite clear that Carter-Ruck were being paid for their work whichever way you look at it. They were paid by retainer or by a CFA. At no point did they offer or provide any work free of charge.
In order to be described as 'pro bono' the solicitor's work has to be done without payment being made by anyone, client or defendant.
That's my last word on the subject unless someone can find a definition of 'pro bono' which differs from this;
professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
so you have given up with your claim that a writ has been issued and have not provided a cite...so best leave it there
-
This secondary argument isn't really important, though, is it? The interesting bit is what Adam Tudor said;
We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
It is quite clear that Carter-Ruck were being paid for their work whichever way you look at it. They were paid by retainer or by a CFA. At no point did they offer or provide any work free of charge.
In order to be described as 'pro bono' the solicitor's work has to be done without payment being made by anyone, client or defendant.
That's my last word on the subject unless someone can find a definition of 'pro bono' which differs from this;
professional work undertaken voluntarily and without payment.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono
From your own cite which contradicts your statement above that pro bono work has to be done without payment being made by anyone:
“A judge may occasionally determine that the loser should compensate a winning pro bono counsel”.
-
From your own cite which contradicts your statement above that pro bono work has to be done without payment being made by anyone:
“A judge may occasionally determine that the loser should compensate a winning pro bono counsel”.
Who was counsel?
-
CR would be bringing proceedings on behalf of the mccanns
Why would they be doing that?
-
From your own cite which contradicts your statement above that pro bono work has to be done without payment being made by anyone:
“A judge may occasionally determine that the loser should compensate a winning pro bono counsel”.
Carter-Ruck didn't work pro bono.
-
The express settled out of court...you are suggesting they actually went to court and then settled....you have provided no cite to support your claim that the court hearing was to start the libel case..
The express solicitors would have seen all the claims and evidence from CR...they then decide to defend or not....if they decide to defend a date is set. Before that date the solicitors for the Express would spend hours ..days preparing their case...you are suggesting having done all this they walked into court and immediately capitulated...you are claiming all this as fact with no cite....far more likely that they settled out of court and the court was set simply to grant a court order re the out of court agreement
It is clear that you haven't a baldy clue about how civil actions work let know understand what a writ is. If I understand you correctly you think that the McCann lawyers sent some charming letters to the newspapers asking for a huge pile of dosh as reparation because they published some nasty stuff in the national press about their client. That said newspapers threw up their arms in despair and woe betide agreed to part with their disgracefully hard earned cash in exchange for not being dragged thru the courts.
Have I missed anything because that is the biggest pile of bs that I have read in eons.
-
Carter-Ruck didn't work pro bono.
Totally correct. Pro bono means never to be paid and that was not the situation with CR. I think you already pointed out to davel that the no win...no fee system is not pro bono.
CR would never have represented the parents in a libel action against the British Press had they not been assured of getting their fat fee. Another company milking Maddie's demise. How many £ millions have been pocketed by these caring corporations as a result of a missing child?
-
Totally correct. Pro bono means never to be paid and that was not the situation with CR. I think you already pointed out to davel that the no win...no fee system is not pro bono.
A little knowledge is a bad thing.
Understanding that pro bono is a diminution of pro bono publico , a legal expression relating to a specific legal concept and is not just a posh way of saying buckshee, would help.
-
A little knowledge is a bad thing.
Understanding that pro bono is a diminution of pro bono publico , a legal expression relating to a specific legal concept and is not just a posh way of saying buckshee, would help.
I cannot understand how anyone could be confused about the issue. GM admitted that there was a CFA in place but they didn't need to use it as the media rolled over and agreed to pay up. The McCanns got paid, CR got their fees paid, apologies were made in the newspapers, everybody moved on.
-
It is clear that you haven't a baldy clue about how civil actions work let know understand what a writ is. If I understand you correctly you think that the McCann lawyers sent some charming letters to the newspapers asking for a huge pile of dosh as reparation because they published some nasty stuff in the national press about their client. That said newspapers threw up their arms in despair and woe betide agreed to part with their disgracefully hard earned cash in exchange for not being dragged thru the courts.
Have I missed anything because that is the biggest pile of bs that I have read in eons.
most of the bs is coming from you.....I have personal experience of how actions for damages work...and pre action protocol is pretty much what you have described..
letter from CR to express who pass it to their solicitors...they decide if its defensible...if not they agree a figure with CR plus agreed method of apology...no involvement of court at all...that is precisely how its done....in this case CR may have made an appliction for a court order to enforce it..
your post that both sides presented their arguments to the judge who told them to go away and reach a settlement is pure codswallop for which you have produced no evidence or cite...Ill leave those reading to decide who the proper charlie is
-
I cannot understand how anyone could be confused about the issue. GM admitted that there was a CFA in place but they didn't need to use it as the media rolled over and agreed to pay up. The McCanns got paid, CR got their fees paid, apologies were made in the newspapers, everybody moved on.
Nor I.
-
Totally correct. Pro bono means never to be paid and that was not the situation with CR. I think you already pointed out to davel that the no win...no fee system is not pro bono.
CR would never have represented the parents in a libel action against the British Press had they not been assured of getting their fat fee. Another company milking Maddie's demise. How many £ millions have been pocketed by these caring corporations as a result of a missing child?
you obviously have not followed the posts...cite for where I have claimed pro bono is the same as CFA
-
most of the bs is coming from you.....I have personal experience of how actions for damages work...and pre action protocol is pretty much what you have described..
letter from CR to express who pass it to their solicitors...they decide if its defensible...if not they agree a figure with CR plus agreed method of apology...no involvement of court at all...that is precisely how its done....in this case CR may have made an appliction for a court order to enforce it..
your post that both sides presented their arguments to the judge who told them to go away and reach a settlement is pure codswallop for which you have produced no evidence or cite...Ill leave those reading to decide who the proper charlie is
You are. Your understanding of the set up is piss poor your unsubstantiated boasting notwithstanding.
You lost this argument several days ago and are now becoming a threeshifts a day boor.
-
You are. Your understanding of the set up is piss poor your unsubstantiated boasting notwithstanding.
You lost this argument several days ago and are now becoming a threeshifts a day boor.
all in your rather limited opinion...or have you forgotten thats all your posts are...if you had any real knowledge you would understand its angelos knowledge that is piss poor
-
Well the good thing is we are asking G-unit for a cite. We might be lucky with this request.
Might have more of a chance of winning the Euro Millions ... I have twice requested a cite without success ... but Heigh-Ho, I'm only a moderator after all so may as well expect to be treated like one of the Seven.
-
Court’s powers in connection with an offer of amends
3.1 Sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 1996 make provision for a person who has made a statement which is alleged to be defamatory to make an offer to make amends. Section 3 provides for the court to assist in the process of making amends.
3.2 A claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1996 made other than in existing proceedings may be made under CPR Part 8 –
(1) where the parties agree on the steps to make amends, and the sole purpose of the claim is for the court to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled; or
Everything I have posted was before I had seen this.....it totally supports my claims re pre action protocol...
so the Express settled out of ourt and the sole reason for the courts involvement was...to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled;...imo
-
Might have more of a chance of winning the Euro Millions ... I have twice requested a cite without success ... but Heigh-Ho, I'm only a moderator after all so may as well expect to be treated like one of the Seven.
both gunit and angelo have claimed the court appearance was to hear the claim....yet neither ahve provided a cite to support it
-
Court’s powers in connection with an offer of amends
3.1 Sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 1996 make provision for a person who has made a statement which is alleged to be defamatory to make an offer to make amends. Section 3 provides for the court to assist in the process of making amends.
3.2 A claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1996 made other than in existing proceedings may be made under CPR Part 8 –
(1) where the parties agree on the steps to make amends, and the sole purpose of the claim is for the court to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled; or
Everything I have posted was before I had seen this.....it totally supports my claims re pre action protocol...
so the Express settled out of ourt and the sole reason for the courts involvement was...to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled;
Just am opinion ... but it stands to reason that there would have to be a legal method of ensuring that agreements are implemented to avoid having to return to court at a later date.
-
Defamation Act 1996 - great
-
Just am opinion ... but it stands to reason that there would have to be a legal method of ensuring that agreements are implemented to avoid having to return to court at a later date.
as I understand by having the agreement as a court order rather than a simpe contract...it makes a breach of the court order..contempt of court....a lot more serious than breach of contract.......LOL
-
You have all had your fun. Stop abusing each other.
-
the did some initial work pro bono...imo.....as have alraedy explained....other fees were recovered from the newspaers...as i have alraedy explained
CR were on a retainer, Adam Tudor confirmed this in front of the select committee. There was no work done for free. Why do you insist there was when even the main players say otherwise?
-
CR were on a retainer, Adam Tudor confirmed this in front of the select committee. There was no work done for free. Why do you insist there was when even the main players say otherwise?
Retainers do not always involve a fee...cite already given
-
Retainers do not always involve a fee...cite already given
Would you care to explain retainer again then please?
-
im sure you are wrong...CR worked pro bono for the mccanns...give me a reason why they would not claim their charges which they were entitled to from the newspapers who agreed to settle
Hmm.
-
Would you care to explain retainer again then please?
Not really...I've given the cite ...and others several times whilst Angelo and gunit have not given cites
-
Not really...I've given the cite ...and others several times whilst Angelo and gunit have not given cites
I'm not asking for a cite but an understanding.
-
I'm not asking for a cite but an understanding.
I've used the term pro bono in its literal sense...this seems to have really upset some people...they must have very sensitive constitutions
-
Retainers do not always involve a fee...cite already given
From Tudor’s evidence it would appear that wasn’t the case with this case.
-
I've used the term pro bono in its literal sense...this seems to have really upset some people...they must have very sensitive constitutions
What about retainer? Can someone explain that concept to me please?
-
What about retainer? Can someone explain that concept to me please?
A fee paid in advance to someone, especially a barrister, in order to secure their services for use when required.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/retainer
-
from Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 289-290:
“Adam Tudor and his colleagues [at Carter-Ruck] continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes…”
Just come across this...anyone got the book to confirm
-
from Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 289-290:
“Adam Tudor and his colleagues [at Carter-Ruck] continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes…”
Just come across this...anyone got the book to confirm
It doesn’t mention Carter Ruck.
-
It doesn’t mention Carter Ruck.
Adam Tudor and his colleagues....who do you think she is referring to...is there another Alan Tudor
-
from Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 289-290:
“Adam Tudor and his colleagues [at Carter-Ruck] continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes…”
Just come across this...anyone got the book to confirm
Without payment..thats pro bono
-
from Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 289-290:
“Adam Tudor and his colleagues [at Carter-Ruck] continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes…”
Just come across this...anyone got the book to confirm
Your point was CR represented the McCanns in the Express case pro bono. You have been given several cites which prove this was not the case.
-
Might have more of a chance of winning the Euro Millions ... I have twice requested a cite without success ... but Heigh-Ho, I'm only a moderator after all so may as well expect to be treated like one of the Seven.
Moderators are also supposed to provide cites but I have been ignored when requesting them.
Seven what? Deadly sins, Samurai, Wonders of the World?
"we also issued a formal complaint against Associated Newspapers......After a rather protracted series of negotiations we came to an agreement involving financial compensation and a front-page apology in the Standard."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475669#msg475669
-
Carter-Ruck didn't work pro bono.
Yes they did... according to Kate..
-
So didn’t you claim CR had worked pro bono on the Express litigation?
-
Just am opinion ... but it stands to reason that there would have to be a legal method of ensuring that agreements are implemented to avoid having to return to court at a later date.
I explained this about a week or so ago.
You clearly chose to ignore it or were not paying attention.
-
So didn’t you claim CR had worked pro bono on the Express litigation?
I believe they did some early work pro bono ...yes
-
I explained this about a week or so ago.
You clearly chose to ignore it or were not paying attention.
Or your explanation was not correct..once again...you gave your opinion...that's all
-
from Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 289-290:
“Adam Tudor and his colleagues [at Carter-Ruck] continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes…”
Just come across this...anyone got the book to confirm
From Kate's book ...
Not only had I never expected to get to know so many lawyers, I didn’t expect to like quite so many of them. Ed Smethurst, Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and Isabel Duarte in particular have laboured faithfully out of the goodness of their hearts, on Madeleine’s behalf and ours, regardless of the day or the hour. Their priceless expertise and commitment has extended to the completion of this book. Cláudia Nogueira from LIFT Consulting has also been a vital source of knowledge and advice and a very good friend.
Also from Kate's book ...
Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes.
They have given us invaluable advice, for example, in our attempts to deal with the widespread defamatory
material circulating on the internet.
-
CR were on a retainer, Adam Tudor confirmed this in front of the select committee. There was no work done for free. Why do you insist there was when even the main players say otherwise?
Good question.
"I tell you it's Burt Reynolds".The fun starts at 19 mins.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TibKJLHRjD8
-
I believe they did some early work pro bono ...yes
Unfortunately the evidence doesn’t support your belief so I’m afraid your amusement is misplaced.
-
From Kate's book ...
Not only had I never expected to get to know so many lawyers, I didn’t expect to like quite so many of them. Ed Smethurst, Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and Isabel Duarte in particular have laboured faithfully out of the goodness of their hearts, on Madeleine’s behalf and ours, regardless of the day or the hour. Their priceless expertise and commitment has extended to the completion of this book. Cláudia Nogueira from LIFT Consulting has also been a vital source of knowledge and advice and a very good friend.
Also from Kate's book ...
Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes.
They have given us invaluable advice, for example, in our attempts to deal with the widespread defamatory
material circulating on the internet.
quote
"Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement."
-
6&%5%
-
From Kate's book ...
Not only had I never expected to get to know so many lawyers, I didn’t expect to like quite so many of them. Ed Smethurst, Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and Isabel Duarte in particular have laboured faithfully out of the goodness of their hearts, on Madeleine’s behalf and ours, regardless of the day or the hour. Their priceless expertise and commitment has extended to the completion of this book. Cláudia Nogueira from LIFT Consulting has also been a vital source of knowledge and advice and a very good friend.
Also from Kate's book ...
Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes.
They have given us invaluable advice, for example, in our attempts to deal with the widespread defamatory
material circulating on the internet.
Ed Smethurst was paid by Kennedy, Isabel Duarte and Claudia Nogueira was paid by the fund, Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson were working for CR on a retainer paid either by a benefactor or the fund and/or unsuccessful defendants. There is absolutely no evidence that any legal services where given from the kindness of any these people's hearts and to claim there was is disingenuous at best.
-
Ed Smethurst was paid by Kennedy, Isabel Duarte and Claudia Nogueira was paid by the fund, Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson were working for CR on a retainer paid either by a benefactor or the fund and/or unsuccessful defendants. There is absolutely no evidence that any legal services where given from the kindness of any these peopke’s hearts and to claim there was is disingenuous at best.
What sort of evidence would you expect there to be to show that any of these people had undertaken any legal services out of the goodness of their hearts?
-
Moderators are also supposed to provide cites but I have been ignored when requesting them.
Seven what? Deadly sins, Samurai, Wonders of the World?
"we also issued a formal complaint against Associated Newspapers......After a rather protracted series of negotiations we came to an agreement involving financial compensation and a front-page apology in the Standard."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475669#msg475669
I am aware that there have been occasions that a moderator has not supplied a cite when requested ... however you have suggested I have ignored you (perish the thought ^*&&) ... I am afraid you will have to substantiate that with a cite.
But prior to doing that I require a cite to substantiate the implication you made in your post as detailed below ... thank you.
You said ...
It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633
-
I am aware that there have been occasions that a moderator has not supplied a cite when requested ... however you have suggested I have ignored you (perish the thought ^*&&) ... I am afraid you will have to substantiate that with a cite.
But prior to doing that I require a cite to substantiate the implication you made in your post as detailed below ... thank you.
You said ...
It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633
I have been unable to find any claim that compensation paid to the McCanns by Associated Press was put into the Fund. I am happy to be corrected if anyone knows more than I do about that.
-
I am aware that there have been occasions that a moderator has not supplied a cite when requested ... however you have suggested I have ignored you (perish the thought ^*&&) ... I am afraid you will have to substantiate that with a cite.
But prior to doing that I require a cite to substantiate the implication you made in your post as detailed below ... thank you.
You said ...
It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633
Snip/
There is no record of it. Nor is there any record of Mr and Mrs Moyes who were in the apartment above Mrs fenn being interviewed either.
Or the people who left apartment 5J on May 4th. Does anyone even know who they were, where they went or where they are now?
Is it a fact that people left 5J on 4th May? I think a cite could be required.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9683.msg469449#msg469449
-
Snip/
There is no record of it. Nor is there any record of Mr and Mrs Moyes who were in the apartment above Mrs fenn being interviewed either.
Or the people who left apartment 5J on May 4th. Does anyone even know who they were, where they went or where they are now?
Is it a fact that people left 5J on 4th May? I think a cite could be required.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9683.msg469449#msg469449
Posted in wrong thread IMO.
-
Posted in wrong thread IMO.
Brietta requested an occasion where she failed to provide a requested cite.
She got it.
-
Brietta requested an occasion where she failed to provide a requested cite.
She got it.
Actually ... if you check back ... you may observe that I did not receive the cite I have been requesting ^*&&
-
Actually ... if you check back ... you may observe that I did not receive the cite I have been requesting ^*&&
You requested an instance where YOU were asked to provide a cite, and did not.
Provide, not receive.
You got such an instance.
-
Ed Smethurst was paid by Kennedy, Isabel Duarte and Claudia Nogueira was paid by the fund, Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson were working for CR on a retainer paid either by a benefactor or the fund and/or unsuccessful defendants. There is absolutely no evidence that any legal services where given from the kindness of any these peopke’s hearts and to claim there was is disingenuous at best.
There is evidence that Adam Tudor of carter ruck provided services free if charge and I have posted it
-
Actually ... if you check back ... you may observe that I did not receive the cite I have been requesting ^*&&
Neither did I.
-
Neither did I.
It’s a Mexican standoff! ^*&&
-
From Kate's book ...
Not only had I never expected to get to know so many lawyers, I didn’t expect to like quite so many of them. Ed Smethurst, Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson and Isabel Duarte in particular have laboured faithfully out of the goodness of their hearts, on Madeleine’s behalf and ours, regardless of the day or the hour. Their priceless expertise and commitment has extended to the completion of this book. Cláudia Nogueira from LIFT Consulting has also been a vital source of knowledge and advice and a very good friend.
Also from Kate's book ...
Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes.
They have given us invaluable advice, for example, in our attempts to deal with the widespread defamatory
material circulating on the internet.
Davel has repeatedly claimed that Carter-Ruck worked pro bono for the McCanns in their action against Express Newspapers, but none of the evidence supports his claim.
-
Carter-Ruck didn't work pro bono.
CR did some work pro bono.....no one has suggested they never received any payment whatsoever
-
Davel has repeatedly claimed that Carter-Ruck worked pro bono for the McCanns in their action against Express Newspapers, but none of the evidence supports his claim.
No one knows if awrit was issued in this case...yet you have claimed as afact it was and provided no cite...no one knows if ther was a CF in palce...but you have claimed as afact there was ad provided no cite..
I believe its quite possible that early work in the express case was carried out free of charge to teh mccanns because CR knew they had such a solid case..
we now know taht CR dod do pro bono work for the mccanns which you have continually denied
-
CR did some work pro bono.....no one has suggested they never received any payment whatsoever
They were on a retainer as my post showed. Whether Kate knew this or not is beside the point.
-
They were on a retainer as my post showed. Whether Kate knew this or not is beside the point.
Retainers do not always involve payment...as my cite has shown
-
Retainers do not always involve payment...as my cite has shown
The retainer agreement will layout the charges payable and terms of engagement. To show CR we’re acting Pro Bono as you claim, you will need to produce evidence which you have thus far failed to do.
-
The retainer agreement will layout the charges payable and terms of engagement. To show CR we’re acting Pro Bono as you claim, you will need to produce evidence which you have thus far failed to do.
I have produced evidence...Kates statement
-
Davel is owed no apologies at all in my opinion. He has repeatedly claimed that Carter-Ruck worked pro bono for the McCanns in their action against Express Newspapers, but none of the evidence supports his claim.
Did the McCanns pay C-R for their work against Express newspapers? Would they have had to pay them if they’d lost the case?
-
Did the McCanns pay C-R for their work against Express newspapers? Would they have had to pay them if they’d lost the case?
Law firms are paid in a variety of ways. If their clients don't pay their fees it doesn't follow that the law firm worked pro bono.
-
Law firms are paid in a variety of ways. If their clients don't pay their fees it doesn't follow that the law firm worked pro bono.
From the McCanns’ point of view it does.
-
Does it really matter?
-
Does it really matter?
Not really, but it seems to be a vitally important issue for some.
-
Does it really matter?
Of course it doesn't....but it seems some posters want to keep it going..and I know why
-
Did the McCanns pay C-R for their work against Express newspapers? Would they have had to pay them if they’d lost the case?
The argument is they were paid by someone! They did not work pro bono. Gerrys statement has confirmed this.
He confirmed an agreement regarding payment IF they were to have a full court attendance. This would be no win no fee. They worked on the case making use of the retainer- again this has been cited many times.
My friend has a hair salon and does my hair at short notice out of the goodness of her heart- she still charges.
-
The argument is they were paid by someone! They did not work pro bono. Gerrys statement has confirmed this.
He confirmed an agreement regarding payment IF they were to have a full court attendance. This would be no win no fee. They worked on the case making use of the retainer- again this has been cited many times.
My friend has a hair salon and does my hair at short notice out of the goodness of her heart- she still charges.
Some friend!
-
There is evidence that Adam Tudor of carter ruck provided services free if charge and I have posted it
However that’s not what you claimed. You claimed CR had acted pro bono in the case against the Express. That is not true.
-
From the McCanns’ point of view it does.
If pro bono meant 'free to the client' you might be right, but it doesn't.
-
If pro bono meant 'free to the client' you might be right, but it doesn't.
I know it doesn’t mean that, but as far as they were concerned the work didn’t cost them a penny, but if you really must continue this pedantic witch hunt of Davel....
-
If pro bono meant 'free to the client' you might be right, but it doesn't.
I used it in its wider sense...meaning free to client....so I'm right
pro bono
prəʊ ˈbɒnəʊ,prəʊ ˈbəʊnəʊ/
adverb & adjectiveNORTH AMERICAN
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
So work without charge...not without payment...as I posted some time ago
-
I used it in its wider sense...meaning free to client....so I'm right
pro bono
prəʊ ˈbɒnəʊ,prəʊ ˈbəʊnəʊ/
adverb & adjectiveNORTH AMERICAN
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
So work without charge...not without payment...as I posted some time ago
The definition of the concept is correct.
However CR were paid so there was a charge therefore they were not working pro bono.
-
The definition of the concept is correct.
However CR were paid so there was a charge therefore they were not working pro bono.
No charge to the mccanns
-
No charge to the mccanns
Indeed but they were paid so not pro bono. Why are you finding that concept so hard to take on board.
-
CR did not work pro bono. They were paid.
-
I have produced evidence...Kates statement
She didn’t mention Pro Bono?
-
She didn’t mention Pro Bono?
she mentioned free of charge
-
as I posted some time ago...pro bono to the mccanns
You now appear to be inventing new definitions to cover your misuse of Pro Bono.
-
from Dr Kate McCann's book, pages 289-290:
“Adam Tudor and his colleagues [at Carter-Ruck] continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes…”
Just come across this...anyone got the book to confirm
They would do wouldn't they if they knew there would be a fat fee at the end of it. Nobody anywhere has stated that CR worked on behalf of the McCanns for free. As for pro bono, that's for any poor souls who are broke.
-
They would do wouldn't they if they knew there would be a fat fee at the end of it. Nobody anywhere has stated that CR worked on behalf of the McCanns for free.
Of course they would...I wonder if the McCanns approached CR or CR approached the McCann's in the first place..CR knew they could earn a fortune from the McCann case
-
yup.
The McCann's 'point of view' is irrelevant when defining pro bono, as you know.
-
The McCann's 'point of view' is irrelevant when defining pro bono, as you know.
I wonder if Duaryr did any pro bono work
-
Of course they would...I wonder if the McCanns approached CR or CR approached the McCann's in the first place..CR knew they could earn a fortune from the McCann case
So they were, by definition, not working Pro Bono then.
-
quote
"Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement."
I haven't met a lawyer yet who worked on a libel case for free and the McCann case was no different. CR knew they would be paid handsomely in the end so the notion that they worked for free is frankly silly.
-
See my previous posts
I have seen your previous posts and it is clear they weren’t doing pro bono work for the McCanns.
-
I haven't met a lawyer yet who worked on a libel case for free and the McCann case was no different. CR knew they would be paid in the end so the notion that they worked for free is frankly silly.
No one has suggested they worked for free...just no cost to the McCanns
-
No one has suggested they worked for free...just no cost to the McCanns
You keep saying pro bono which is working for free.
-
Ed Smethurst was paid by Kennedy, Isabel Duarte and Claudia Nogueira was paid by the fund, Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson were working for CR on a retainer paid either by a benefactor or the fund and/or unsuccessful defendants. There is absolutely no evidence that any legal services where given from the kindness of any these people's hearts and to claim there was is disingenuous at best.
I would call it wishful thinking. I think Kate McCann was just a tad naive to think CR was preparing their libel case against the media out of the goodness of their hearts.
-
No one has suggested they worked for free...just no cost to the McCanns
I would agree with that, the newspapers paid CR as part of the out-of-court settlement.
-
I would call it wishful thinking. I think Kate McCann was just a tad naive to think CR was preparing their libel case against the media out of the goodness of their hearts.
I'm sure Kate realised CR would do well out of any case as she knew there was no real evidence against them
-
No one has suggested they worked for free...just no cost to the McCanns
Pro bono means the lawyers take the case with no expectation of payment from anyone.
-
There is evidence that Adam Tudor of carter ruck provided services free if charge and I have posted it
I think you'll find that it is all swings and roundabouts.
-
No one knows if awrit was issued in this case...yet you have claimed as afact it was and provided no cite...no one knows if ther was a CF in palce...but you have claimed as afact there was ad provided no cite..
I believe its quite possible that early work in the express case was carried out free of charge to teh mccanns because CR knew they had such a solid case..
we now know taht CR dod do pro bono work for the mccanns which you have continually denied
Legal action cannot be instigated without one, basic law I'm afraid. You don't sue the national media for a ton of money without due process.
-
Legal action cannot be instigated without one, basic law.
An out of court settlement does not require a writ.....
Lawyers may negotiate a settlement without a writ being isued..as part of the pre action protocol....it all starts with a letter
-
Pre action protocol may result in a pre action settlement...or a settlement before legal action starts
-
An out of court settlement does not require a writ.....
Lawyers may negotiate a settlement without a writ being isued..as part of the pre action protocol....it all starts with a letter
No court can oversee an out of court settlement without proper procedure. The McCann case against the media was overseen by the High Court thus proper procedure was invoked ergo a writ was issued.
-
No court can oversee an out of court settlement without proper procedure. The McCann case against the media was overseen by the High Court thus proper procedure was invoked ergo a writ was issued.
I don't see any evidence of a writ being issued...the case was so strong in the McCann's favour that the express had no defence and their lawyers would have advised them to settle
Settlement s can be made pre litigation
-
https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/protocol/prot_def
-
I don't see any evidence of a writ being issued...the case was so strong in the McCann's favour that the express had no defence and their lawyers would have advised them to settle
Settlement s can be made pre litigation
Nonsense, the court has to be involved to ensure compliance in cases involving hundred of thousands of pounds otherwise the defendants could agree any old thing but pay nothing.
-
Nonsense, the court has to be involved to ensure compliance in cases involving hundred of thousands of pounds otherwise the defendants could agree any old thing but pay nothing.
The Courts take the view that litigation should be a last resort, and that claims should not be issued prematurely when a settlement is still actively being explored. Parties are warned that if the protocol is not followed (including this paragraph) then the Court must have regard to such conduct when determining costs
-
Nonsense, the court has to be involved to ensure compliance in cases involving hundred of thousands of pounds otherwise the defendants could agree any old thing but pay nothing.
I've already posted a cite to show the court may be involved after a settlement has been reached to enforce the settlement in the form of s court order
-
Just am opinion ... but it stands to reason that there would have to be a legal method of ensuring that agreements are implemented to avoid having to return to court at a later date.
That's right and the first step is to lodge papers and serve a writ on the defendants.
-
I've already posted a cite to show the court may be involved after a settlement has been reached to enforce the settlement in the form of s court order
No court can involve itself without proper procedure and in every case that starts at the outset.
-
No court can involve itself without proper procedure and in every case that starts at the outset.
It starts with pre action protocol...no court involved....a writ is only issued if the other side refuses to settle...which did not happen in this case
-
That's right and the first step is to lodge papers and serve a writ on the defendants.
It isn't John...the first action is a letter of intent
-
It isn't John...the first action is a letter of intent
A litigant only sends a letter where they wish some continuing libel expunged. If someone wishes to sue a party for a substantial sum of money a letter is pointless. Nobody pays out huge sums of money without a court action being raised first.
You appear to hold the view that the McCann's lawyer sent a letter to the media demanding compensation for a potential libel and that the media agreed. It just doesn't work like that in the real world.
-
A litigant only sends a letter where they wish some libel expunged.
Have a look at the link I have provided.... defamation actions start with a letter of intent...not a writ
Unless lawyers follow procedure costs will not be awarded...CR would then be working for nothing
-
A litigant only sends a letter where they wish some continuing libel expunged. If someone wishes to sue a party for a substantial sum of money a letter is pointless. Nobody pays out huge sums of money without a court action being raised first.
They pay out a substantial sum of court action is threatened and they have no defence....as happened in this case
If they don't...as the BBC found out it will cost them millions
-
Have a look at the link I have provided.... defamation actions start with a letter of intent...not a writ
Unless lawyers follow procedure costs will not be awarded...CR would then be working for nothing
A letter of intent is not mandatory.
-
A letter of intent is not mandatory.
If the lawyers want to recover their costs...it is
If CR didn't follow pre action protocol they would not be able to recover their costs...I can't see any legal firm not following legal guidelines...it would be professional suicide
-
If the lawyers want to recover their costs...it is
If CR didn't follow pre action protocol they would not be able to recover their costs...I can't see any legal firm not following legal guidelines...it would be professional suicide
Lawyers working pro bono aren't bothered about costs.
-
Lawyers working pro bono aren't bothered about costs.
Perhaps you could comment on John's claims...offer him some support
-
A litigant only sends a letter where they wish some continuing libel expunged. If someone wishes to sue a party for a substantial sum of money a letter is pointless. Nobody pays out huge sums of money without a court action being raised first.
You appear to hold the view that the McCann's lawyer sent a letter to the media demanding compensation for a potential libel and that the media agreed. It just doesn't work like that in the real world.
That is exactly how it works in the real world..there may have been some negotiation...but that's how it works
-
I would agree with that, the newspapers paid CR as part of the out-of-court settlement.
Which means the McCanns paid.
-
As I said I wonder why this matters.
-
As I said I wonder why this matters.
In my opinion it matters great deal to some who resent that there was Madeleine's Fund which allowed the search for Madeleine to be financed and who also resent the fact that Madeleine's parents were able to take successful legal action against press lies.
I believe in their ideal world there would have been no Madeleine Fund; and I believe that in that ideal dream world they imagine the parents dipping into that Fund to finance their legal action against those who were libelling them.
The fact that what legal action they did take against the press was spectacularly successful and became a net earner putting money into Madeleine's Fund does not sit well with some ... hence why it all matters terribly ... in my opinion, of course.
-
In my opinion it matters great deal to some who resent that there was Madeleine's Fund which allowed the search for Madeleine to be financed and who also resent the fact that Madeleine's parents were able to take successful legal action against press lies.
I believe in their ideal world there would have been no Madeleine Fund; and I believe that in that ideal dream world they imagine the parents dipping into that Fund to finance their legal action against those who were libelling them.
The fact that what legal action they did take against the press was spectacularly successful and became a net earner putting money into Madeleine's Fund does not sit well with some ... hence why it all matters terribly ... in my opinion, of course.
Clearly for some people, the fact that a fund which was created to search for a missing child has been abused to the extent it has does not sit too well. The false promises of transparency only serving to reinforce and compound this view.
-
As I said I wonder why this matters.
That can be and should be used on all threads,nothing but nothing posted on here matters a jot in the grand scheme of things.
-
That can be and should be used on all threads,nothing but nothing posted on here matters a jot in the grand scheme of things.
absolutely true
-
In my opinion it matters great deal to some who resent that there was Madeleine's Fund which allowed the search for Madeleine to be financed and who also resent the fact that Madeleine's parents were able to take successful legal action against press lies.
I believe in their ideal world there would have been no Madeleine Fund; and I believe that in that ideal dream world they imagine the parents dipping into that Fund to finance their legal action against those who were libelling them.
The fact that what legal action they did take against the press was spectacularly successful and became a net earner putting money into Madeleine's Fund does not sit well with some ... hence why it all matters terribly ... in my opinion, of course.
The thread isn't about the reasons why the McCanns acted against the press or about what they did with the damages they won. It's about the arrangement between the McCanns and Carter-Ruck during the case against Express Newspapers.
The arrangement the McCanns made with their lawyers isn't important. It only gained importance when it was suggested that it was a pro bono arrangement when it clearly wasn't imo.
-
As I said I wonder why this matters.
Different things matter to different people. I have seen people questioning the relevance/importance of threads started by you.
-
Pro Bono
adverb: pro bono
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms:free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More
Origin
from Latin pro bono publico ‘for the public good’.
The only reason this is being discussed is that some posters insist that pro bono only means free to the client. It does not. If they would only agree with the facts of what pro bono actually means then this thread could be finished.
-
Pro Bono
adverb: pro bono
denoting work undertaken without charge, especially legal work for a client on low income.
"the attorneys are representing him pro bono"
synonyms:free, gratis, unpaid, unrewarded, unsalaried, free of charge, without charge, for nothing, at no cost, without payment, for the common good; More
Origin
from Latin pro bono publico ‘for the public good’.
The only reason this is being discussed is that some posters insist that pro bono only means free to the client. It does not. If they would only agree with the facts of what pro bono actually means then this thread could be finished.
Precisely! 8@??)(
-
I agree. One could hardly consider CR doing some freebies for the McCanns as being for the common good.
-
Clearly for some people, the fact that a fund which was created to search for a missing child has been abused to the extent it has does not sit too well. The false promises of transparency only serving to reinforce and compound this view.
Madeleine disappeared over eleven years ago ... the successful legal complaint made against the press by her parents which cost neither them or Madeleine's Fund a penny piece ... but the funding thereof and the syntax used to describe the funding thereof remains the subject of heated debate.
Why? In my opinion the eleven year negative obsession with the minutiae of the lives of people neither met or known is unhealthy and reflects very badly as an illustration of exactly how the internet should not be used.
-
Madeleine disappeared over eleven years ago ... the successful legal complaint made against the press by her parents which cost neither them or Madeleine's Fund a penny piece ... but the funding thereof and the syntax used to describe the funding thereof remains the subject of heated debate.
Why? In my opinion the eleven year negative obsession with the minutiae of the lives of people neither met or known is unhealthy and reflects very badly as an illustration of exactly how the internet should not be used.
And yet here we all still are, yourself included. ?{)(**
-
Madeleine disappeared over eleven years ago ... the successful legal complaint made against the press by her parents which cost neither them or Madeleine's Fund a penny piece ... but the funding thereof and the syntax used to describe the funding thereof remains the subject of heated debate.
Why? In my opinion the eleven year negative obsession with the minutiae of the lives of people neither met or known is unhealthy and reflects very badly as an illustration of exactly how the internet should not be used.
You may think that but then surely the things we are here to find out are FACTS in this case. The fact that CR were paid (and by whom) is a definite fact and one which some posters on here don't seem to understand. They didn't do it for free, they expected to get paid by someone either the mccanns or the other side.
-
The thread isn't about the reasons why the McCanns acted against the press or about what they did with the damages they won. It's about the arrangement between the McCanns and Carter-Ruck during the case against Express Newspapers.
The arrangement the McCanns made with their lawyers isn't important. It only gained importance when it was suggested that it was a pro bono arrangement when it clearly wasn't imo.
Indeed ... which returns us to the very salient point of exactly why your posts are made in terms of unfounded and in my opinion libellous innuendo as the main feature.
Snip
It took two months of wrangling before Express Newspapers capitulated, by which time an application had been made to the court. That's why both parties attended the court in March.
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633
In my opinion that post ranks as disingenuous insinuation. There is no substance to that claim and you have posted that you can find none.
At the time of the action under discussion Robert Murat had embarked on similar litigation which unlike the settlement only achieved last week in Portugal against a TV station I believe, was settled at the time.
Snip
In July, Murat accepted more than £600,000 in damages from 11 British newspapers after he was libelled in more than 100 articles.
The Express Newspapers-owned Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated Newspapers' Daily Mail, Evening Standard, and Metro; Mirror Group Newspapers' Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror and Scottish Daily Record; and News Group's Sun and News of the World acknowledged that the stories they had run about Murat over nine months were entirely untrue and should never have been printed.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/16/dailyexpress-sundayexpress
You obviously have more information than the rest of us when it comes to posting about what did and what din not go into Madeleine's Fund as a result of actions which did not cost the litigants one penny.
Madeleine McCann: Express apologises to the 'tapas seven' in high court
Express Newspapers today apologised in the high court to the "tapas seven" and paid them £375,000 in libel damages for printing false allegations about them after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Today's apology came after Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express and Daily Star printed apologies to the "tapas seven".
Adam Tudor, from law firm Carter-Ruck, representing the group, said in the statement read out in the high court: "The defendant accepts that these allegations are wholly untrue and there was no evidence to support them.
The £375,000 damages payment will go to the Find Madeleine Fund. Express Newspapers has also agreed to pay the legal costs of the "tapas seven".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/16/dailyexpress-sundayexpress
Snip
Damages understood to be in the range of six figures will be paid to the Find Madeleine fund. Sky News reported that the sum could be as high as £550,000.
Express Newspapers will also pay all legal costs.
"All the money is going to the fund, none of it is going to the family," said Sonia Beldom, a spokesman for the fund. She declined to give details on how much the damages were worth.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html
You have made a post concerning an out of court settlement about which no-one but you appears to have any knowledge ...
I have been unable to find any claim that compensation paid to the McCanns by Associated Press was put into the Fund. I am happy to be corrected if anyone knows more than I do about that.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475776#msg475776
In my opinion either amending your original unsubstantiated post containing your misinformed musings ranks of far more importance to the integrity of the information contained in the forum than argument about syntax.
-
In my opinion either amending your original unsubstantiated post containing your misinformed musings ranks of far more importance to the integrity of the information contained in the forum than argument about syntax.
Snipped from your longer post Brietta. This "argument" as you call it is not about syntax it is about what the legal (note) phrase Pro Bono (shortened from Pro Bono Publico) means. Yourself and others seem to either willfully or though ignorance ignore the fact that this is a term used in law and not just a random phrase in latin.
-
You may think that but then surely the things we are here to find out are FACTS in this case. The fact that CR were paid (and by whom) is a definite fact and one which some posters on here don't seem to understand. They didn't do it for free, they expected to get paid by someone either the mccanns or the other side.
The accused newspapers paid for the lot. The McCanns ... their friends ... and Murat. At the end of the day the Great British Public paid for the lot in terms of increased circulation.
In my opinion it is really weird that those who worry about syntax are less than interested in justice being done on behalf of those maligned.
-
Snipped from your longer post Brietta. This "argument" as you call it is not about syntax it is about what the legal (note) phrase Pro Bono (shortened from Pro Bono Publico) means. Yourself and others seem to either willfully or though ignorance ignore the fact that this is a term used in law and not just a random phrase in latin.
In my opinion it reflects mainly the chagrin of some that the parents of a missing child won their case against lies which in essence reflect the core beliefs held by people who run internet campaigns featuring the same proven lies.
It may have escaped your notice ... we are a discussion forum of disparate individuals ... in law our opinions count for nothing much and I doubt this thread in particular adds anything at all to the sum of human knowledge.
-
In my opinion it reflects mainly the chagrin of some that the parents of a missing child won their case against lies which in essence reflect the core beliefs held by people who run internet campaigns featuring the same proven lies.
It may have escaped your notice ... we are a discussion forum of disparate individuals ... in law our opinions count for nothing much and I doubt this thread in particular adds anything at all to the sum of human knowledge.
My ‘chagrin’ as you call it lies squarely with the poster who has tried over two threads to suggest the CR worked pro bono for the McCanns and that that pro bono work was somehow a reflection in their faith in the McCann’s innocence. Even before the litigation process started and at every juncture subsequently CR were paid handsomely and of course that work had little to do with the lawyers belief in either the McCanns guilt or innocence and everything to do with money and profile.
-
Indeed ... which returns us to the very salient point of exactly why your posts are made in terms of unfounded and in my opinion libellous innuendo as the main feature.
Snip
It took two months of wrangling before Express Newspapers capitulated, by which time an application had been made to the court. That's why both parties attended the court in March.
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633
In my opinion that post ranks as disingenuous insinuation. There is no substance to that claim and you have posted that you can find none.
At the time of the action under discussion Robert Murat had embarked on similar litigation which unlike the settlement only achieved last week in Portugal against a TV station I believe, was settled at the time.
Snip
In July, Murat accepted more than £600,000 in damages from 11 British newspapers after he was libelled in more than 100 articles.
The Express Newspapers-owned Daily Express, Sunday Express and Daily Star; Associated Newspapers' Daily Mail, Evening Standard, and Metro; Mirror Group Newspapers' Daily Mirror and Sunday Mirror and Scottish Daily Record; and News Group's Sun and News of the World acknowledged that the stories they had run about Murat over nine months were entirely untrue and should never have been printed.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/16/dailyexpress-sundayexpress
You obviously have more information than the rest of us when it comes to posting about what did and what din not go into Madeleine's Fund as a result of actions which did not cost the litigants one penny.
Madeleine McCann: Express apologises to the 'tapas seven' in high court
Express Newspapers today apologised in the high court to the "tapas seven" and paid them £375,000 in libel damages for printing false allegations about them after the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
Today's apology came after Express Newspapers titles the Daily Express and Daily Star printed apologies to the "tapas seven".
Adam Tudor, from law firm Carter-Ruck, representing the group, said in the statement read out in the high court: "The defendant accepts that these allegations are wholly untrue and there was no evidence to support them.
The £375,000 damages payment will go to the Find Madeleine Fund. Express Newspapers has also agreed to pay the legal costs of the "tapas seven".
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2008/oct/16/dailyexpress-sundayexpress
Snip
Damages understood to be in the range of six figures will be paid to the Find Madeleine fund. Sky News reported that the sum could be as high as £550,000.
Express Newspapers will also pay all legal costs.
"All the money is going to the fund, none of it is going to the family," said Sonia Beldom, a spokesman for the fund. She declined to give details on how much the damages were worth.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582175/Papers-apologise-to-Madeleine-McCann-parents.html
You have made a post concerning an out of court settlement about which no-one but you appears to have any knowledge ...
I have been unable to find any claim that compensation paid to the McCanns by Associated Press was put into the Fund. I am happy to be corrected if anyone knows more than I do about that.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475776#msg475776
In my opinion either amending your original unsubstantiated post containing your misinformed musings ranks of far more importance to the integrity of the information contained in the forum than argument about syntax.
Two claims have been made.
1. Carter-Ruck worked pro bono for the McCanns in their action against Express Newspapers.
2. A writ against Express Newspapers was not the reason a High Court hearing was arranged.
Number 1 has, in my opinion, been shown to be false.
Number 2 has not been explained. How did the parties end up in the High Court if no writ was issued?
Two out-of-court settlements were reached in 2008. One was with Express newspapers and the other was with Associated Press. One involved an appearance at the High Court and the other didn't. Why?
-
My ‘chagrin’ as you call it lies squarely with the poster who has tried over two threads to suggest the CR worked pro bono for the McCanns and that that pro bono work was somehow a reflection in their faith in the McCann’s innocence. Even before the litigation process started and at every juncture subsequently CR were paid handsomely and of course that work had little to do with the lawyers belief in either the McCanns guilt or innocence and everything to do with money and profile.
There is no doubt what the legal definition is http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475989#msg475989 neither is there the slightest doubt that the actions taken by the lawyers cost the litigants nothing.
I am actually a lot more concerned about unfounded innuendo than syntax.
-
There is no doubt what the legal definition is http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475989#msg475989 neither is there the slightest doubt that the actions taken by the lawyers cost the litigants nothing.
I am actually a lot more concerned about unfounded innuendo than syntax.
Please explain the connection between unfounded innuendo and whether CR worked pro bono ?
Whether CR worked pro bono or were paid handsomely the McCanns would have paid nothing personally as either the fund or a wealthy benefactor would have picked up the tab.
-
Two claims have been made.
1. Carter-Ruck worked pro bono for the McCanns in their action against Express Newspapers.
2. A writ against Express Newspapers was not the reason a High Court hearing was arranged.
Number 1 has, in my opinion, been shown to be false.
Number 2 has not been explained. How did the parties end up in the High Court if no writ was issued?
Two out-of-court settlements were reached in 2008. One was with Express newspapers and the other was with Associated Press. One involved an appearance at the High Court and the other didn't. Why?
The salient point is the insinuation you have made regarding money ... and ... the Fund.
Snip
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633
I have posted links showing that all damages received by Kate, Gerry and their friends was paid into Madeleine's Fund refuting your insinuation of otherwise which in my opinion is totally misguided.
-
Please explain the connection between unfounded innuendo and whether CR worked pro bono ?
Whether CR worked pro bono or were paid handsomely the McCanns would have paid nothing personally as either the fund or a wealthy benefactor would have picked up the tab.
Unsubstantiated comment is against forum protocols at all times ... not only when it suits.
-
The salient point is the insinuation you have made regarding money ... and ... the Fund.
Snip
A similar complaint was made against Associated Newspapers. They also paid compensation and printed an apology, but never attended court. That means that no application to the court was made regarding that complaint. It has never been claimed that the money paid by them was donated to the Fund.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475633#msg475633
I have posted links showing that all damages received by Kate, Gerry and their friends was paid into Madeleine's Fund refuting your insinuation of otherwise which in my opinion is totally misguided.
You have posted links which refer to Murat's claims, the Tapas seven claims and the McCann's claim against Express Newspapers. Could you direct me to your link explaining the settlement with Associated Newspapers?
-
Two claims have been made.
1. Carter-Ruck worked pro bono for the McCanns in their action against Express Newspapers.
2. A writ against Express Newspapers was not the reason a High Court hearing was arranged.
Number 1 has, in my opinion, been shown to be false.
Number 2 has not been explained. How did the parties end up in the High Court if no writ was issued?
Two out-of-court settlements were reached in 2008. One was with Express newspapers and the other was with Associated Press. One involved an appearance at the High Court and the other didn't. Why?
"Tapas 7" win libel payout from papers - ...
https://uk.reuters.com › article
Looks like you are wrong again...
I'm on my phone so links are difficult..I will post it later
At a hearing at London's High Court on Thursday, the two papers admitted the stories were false and issued apologies to Jane Tanner, Russell O'Brien, Fiona Payne, David Payne, Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Oldfield and Dianne Webster
-
"Tapas 7" win libel payout from papers - ...
https://uk.reuters.com › article
Looks like you are wrong again...
I'm on my phone so links are difficult..I will post it later
I was referring to the McCanns settlements, not those of their friends.
-
Unsubstantiated comment is against forum protocols at all times ... not only when it suits.
Like when some posters claimed that Carter ruck worked Pro Bono, Brietta?
-
You have posted links which refer to Murat's claims, the Tapas seven claims and the McCann's claim against Express Newspapers. Could you direct me to your link explaining the settlement with Associated Newspapers?
Following your original post I asked you if your reference was to action taken by (Carter Ruck on behalf of) the McCann friends http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475637#msg475637
I had taken the bother to check out the accuracy of your insinuation ... it is not to your credit that you did not.
-
OMG - place marker only.
-
Like when some posters claimed that Carter ruck worked Pro Bono, Brietta?
I've qualified the statement to explain I meant free of charge to the McCann's...I've never said CR were not paid
-
I've qualified the statement to explain I meant free of charge to the McCann's...I've never said CR were not paid
And you were wrong. You are on ignore I suggest you do not quote me again for the time being or at least until you explain that you now understand what Pro bono is. Thank you.
-
And you were wrong. You are on ignore I suggest you do not quote me again for the time being or at least until you explain that you now understand what Pro bono is. Thank you.
Sorry, Sunny, you are entitled to have who you like on 'ignore' but Davel is entitled to quote whoever he likes as is everyone else if within forum rules.
-
Sorry, Sunny, you are entitled to have who you like on 'ignore' but Davel is entitled to quote whoever he likes as is everyone else if within forum rules.
OK sorry Brietta. I understand.
-
Following your original post I asked you if your reference was to action taken by (Carter Ruck on behalf of) the McCann friends http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475637#msg475637
I had taken the bother to check out the accuracy of your insinuation ... it is not to your credit that you did not.
I made it clear in my reply that it was not connected to the claims made by their friends.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475644#msg475644
-
I was referring to the McCanns settlements, not those of their friends.
Which settlement
-
I've qualified the statement to explain I meant free of charge to the McCann's...I've never said CR were not paid
Pro bono doesn't mean 'free of charge to the client', so you used the wrong legal term. Admit it and we can all shut up.
-
I made it clear in my reply that it was not connected to the claims made by their friends.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9874.msg475644#msg475644
Are we on the brink of being given information which substantiates your insinuation ... the suspense is ? ? ? ... well ... something or other.
^*&&
-
Which settlement
There were two complaints or actions;
When our action against the Express Group was concluded, we also issued a formal complaint against Associated Newspapers, and particularly the London Evening Standard, which at that stage they owned......
we came to an agreement involving financial compensation and a front-page apology in the Standard
[madeleine]
-
I used it in its literal sense..not it's strict legal sense..you might as well shut up ...no point in going on and on
'Pro bono publico' is the full phrase. The literal translation is 'for the public good'.
-
I see the goalposts are being moved part way through the game.That's just not cricket.
-
Such maturity. Any chance of an adult discussion of facts or is it a playground spat.
You don't see it? this display of tripe is being played out in a fantasy land. What else can we add to this thread, how many cites,definitions of Pro Bono will make any difference to these supporters.
This is pure trolling behaviour. IMO... I find it hilarious! The joke below sums it up...
A judge who had an eye condition which is known colloquially as ‘crossed eyed’ Had three defendants standing before him. He said to the first one, what do you plead, the second one said Not guilty your honour, the judge said I wasn’t talking to you be quiet!, the third man said What? Me? I never said a word!
Laughing out loud is good for the soul.
-
I consider it trolling too. All those who are consistently refusing to accept the truth only make themselves look more foolish IMO.
-
There were two complaints or actions;
When our action against the Express Group was concluded, we also issued a formal complaint against Associated Newspapers, and particularly the London Evening Standard, which at that stage they owned......
we came to an agreement involving financial compensation and a front-page apology in the Standard
[madeleine]
Do you have any more info....it's says a formal complaint rather than a libel action
-
I consider it trolling too. All those who are consistently refusing to accept the truth only make themselves look more foolish IMO.
SHHhhhh they can't see past their own self importance to know they are actually causing more damage to the McCanns rep. By talking such rot, and offering nothing is terms of offering decent debating challenges to the Tapas 9 statements, which are being scrutinised.
-
SHHhhhh they can't see past their own self importance to know they are actually causing more damage to the McCanns rep. By talking such rot, and offering nothing is terms of offering decent debating challenges to the Tapas 9 statements, which are being scrutinised.
I've often thought this. By their constant and often inventive excuses they keep the McCann saga alive in cyber world.
-
Do you have any more info....it's says a formal complaint rather than a libel action
What's the difference?
-
Probably a normal (fee paying) retainer rather than the more expensive legal costs (which would have been partially covered by a CFA. Nothing pro bono here.
Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.
https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm
-
Less shenanigans please ladies and gentlemen and more relevant debate. TY
-
I used it in its literal sense..not it's strict legal sense..you might as well shut up ...no point in going on and on
The translation from the Latin is "for good" so that don't help your cause too much do it?
Wriggling and jinking like a baggie minnie so yous are.
-
Pro bono doesn't mean 'free of charge to the client', so you used the wrong legal term. Admit it and we can all shut up.
Why doesn't it? Could it be a retainer or a reduced rate or even a CFA?
-
I see the goalposts are being moved part way through the game.That's just not cricket.
That is right they don't have goalposts in cricket.
-
Why doesn't it? Could it be a retainer or a reduced rate or even a CFA?
Robittybob1 Adam Tudor (on my earlier link) stated it was a standard retainer so unlikely to be free. IMO.
-
Robittybob1 Adam Tudor (on my earlier link) stated it was a standard retainer so unlikely to be free. IMO.
I think I agree with you especially where you say: "Nothing pro bono here".
-
That is right they don't have goalposts in cricket.
As an antipodean I thought you would know.
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=its%20just%20not%20cricket
-
I think I agree with you especially where you say: "Nothing pro bono here".
Thank you 8((()*/
-
Why doesn't it? Could it be a retainer or a reduced rate or even a CFA?
Exactly. Just because the client doesn't pay it doesn't mean the services were provided pro bono.
-
Why doesn't it? Could it be a retainer or a reduced rate or even a CFA?
Because that isn’t what Pro Bono means.
-
Because that isn’t what Pro Bono means.
That's what I was thinking too. It seems wrong to do pro bono and charge at the same time.
-
That's what I was thinking too. It seems wrong to do pro bono and charge at the same time.
Not wrong, impossible.