A new member's perception - but are these points true or false?

[Benice]

Re McCann's relationship with Carter Ruck:

No-Win, No-Fee – No More?
Posted on January 13, 2012 by Isabel Martorell
In 1999, changes to the rules on litigation funding opened up the possibility of bringing a wide range of cases under Conditional Fee Agreements (or ‘no-win, no-fee agreements’ as they are colloquially known).    At a time of legal aid cuts, the changes were intended to ensure access to justice for all; not just for the wealthy.

Carter-Ruck was one of the firms which pioneered a CFA scheme which over the years has allowed us to act for hundreds of litigants who would not otherwise have been able to afford to bring an action.

Initially, the majority of these cases were for libel, but we have acted on a no-win, no-fee basis in a number of other types of claim. Merely by way of example:

> A class action by 45 individual claimants against two multi-national Banks for their part in the negligent mis-selling of a pension product that the claimants had purchased. The claim concerned a failed UK pension liberation scheme and offshore trust and administration services and was worth in excess of £20 million.

> A privacy claim for a soldier’s wife whose photograph was used by the Daily Mirror – entirely misleadingly – to illustrate a story about women being unfaithful to their husbands while serving in Iraq.

> A local councillor on incapacity benefits, who suffered serial libel and harassment over several years by a multi-millionaire businessman who accused her of theft and corruption.

> A breach of contract claim against a company which had failed to pay commissions earned by a sales agent.

> A claim for a retired academic against a record company, for breaching copyrights he held in four music editions and for refusing to acknowledge his rights or to pay him royalties.

> A (defendant) Danish radiologist sued for libel by US conglomerate GE Healthcare over allegations concerning one of its products.

> A Muslim IT worker whom the Daily Mail falsely alleged was to be suspected of unlawfully stabbing a man at his house and of being a supporter of Al Qaeda.

> A comprehensive school teacher, falsely accused in an internal Memorandum of inappropriate contact with female pupils.

> Kate and Gerry McCann.



http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=180

Sterling work indeed by Carter Ruck! 

[Aiofe]

Anyone now saying that the McCanns used the fund in the UK for Libel actions?

It was all a myth.

[stephen25000]

On Carter-Ruck.

The other half of the coin.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/24/sir-christopher-meyer-pcc

http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/30OCT9/GUARDIAN_13_10-09.htm

http://www.mri-sg.org/tag/carter-ruck/

http://www.thelawyer.com/analysis/opinion/practice-areas/city-analysis/davenport-comes-good-for-private-eye-in-irwin-mitchell-privacy-battle/1000918.article


....and so much more.

[stephen25000]

Anyone now saying that the McCanns used the fund in the UK for Libel actions?

It was all a myth.

and the cases in Portugal ?

[Aiofe]

On Carter-Ruck.

The other half of the coin.

http://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/24/sir-christopher-meyer-pcc

http://gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/30OCT9/GUARDIAN_13_10-09.htm

http://www.mri-sg.org/tag/carter-ruck/

http://www.thelawyer.com/analysis/opinion/practice-areas/city-analysis/davenport-comes-good-for-private-eye-in-irwin-mitchell-privacy-battle/1000918.article


....and so much more.

I am not saying that Carter Ruck are wonderful. Just that they are effective. And that they worked pro bono and CFA which cost the fund nothing.

[Aiofe]

and the cases in Portugal ?

We do not know. It is within one of the funds articles.

[jassi]

I am not saying that Carter Ruck are wonderful. Just that they are effective. And that they worked pro bono and CFA which cost the fund nothing.

I've never thought of them as a charitable organisation. Do you know if they offer such facilities to many of their other clients?

[stephen25000]

I am not saying that Carter Ruck are wonderful. Just that they are effective. And that they worked pro bono and CFA which cost the fund nothing.

I understand that.

However, in the case of 'Bennett', the costs incurred I believe were in excess of £200,000, yet if reports are true Bennett's payments are minimalistic.

So how would Carter-Ruck recoup their 'expenses' ?

I read somewhere Bennett was selling his house, though whether that is true I don't know.

[Aiofe]

I've never thought of them as a charitable organisation. Do you know if they offer such facilities to many of their other clients?

Do read the threads. I provided a very long list of clients on CFA arrangements at Carter Ruck, possibly on another thread.

I will find it.

[stephen25000]

I've never thought of them as a charitable organisation. Do you know if they offer such facilities to many of their other clients?

That is hardly their reputation. 

[Aiofe]

I understand that.

However, in the case of 'Bennett', the costs incurred I believe were in excess of £200,000, yet if reports are true Bennett's payments are minimalistic.

So how would Carter-Ruck recoup their 'expenses' ?

I read somewhere Bennett was selling his house, though whether that is true I don't know.

They worked pro bono on Bennett becaue he had no funds.

They worked CFA on the Exprss Group because they did.

[Aiofe]

That is hardly their reputation. 

You at least have seen the list that I provided! Just ignoring it, or not really reading, just scatter gun responding.

[Aiofe]

Lazy, lazy lazy.

It is only a few posts down.

I repeat it:

Re McCann's relationship with Carter Ruck:

No-Win, No-Fee – No More?
Posted on January 13, 2012 by Isabel Martorell
In 1999, changes to the rules on litigation funding opened up the possibility of bringing a wide range of cases under Conditional Fee Agreements (or ‘no-win, no-fee agreements’ as they are colloquially known).    At a time of legal aid cuts, the changes were intended to ensure access to justice for all; not just for the wealthy.

Carter-Ruck was one of the firms which pioneered a CFA scheme which over the years has allowed us to act for hundreds of litigants who would not otherwise have been able to afford to bring an action.

Initially, the majority of these cases were for libel, but we have acted on a no-win, no-fee basis in a number of other types of claim. Merely by way of example:

> A class action by 45 individual claimants against two multi-national Banks for their part in the negligent mis-selling of a pension product that the claimants had purchased. The claim concerned a failed UK pension liberation scheme and offshore trust and administration services and was worth in excess of £20 million.

> A privacy claim for a soldier’s wife whose photograph was used by the Daily Mirror – entirely misleadingly – to illustrate a story about women being unfaithful to their husbands while serving in Iraq.

> A local councillor on incapacity benefits, who suffered serial libel and harassment over several years by a multi-millionaire businessman who accused her of theft and corruption.

> A breach of contract claim against a company which had failed to pay commissions earned by a sales agent.

> A claim for a retired academic against a record company, for breaching copyrights he held in four music editions and for refusing to acknowledge his rights or to pay him royalties.

> A (defendant) Danish radiologist sued for libel by US conglomerate GE Healthcare over allegations concerning one of its products.

> A Muslim IT worker whom the Daily Mail falsely alleged was to be suspected of unlawfully stabbing a man at his house and of being a supporter of Al Qaeda.

> A comprehensive school teacher, falsely accused in an internal Memorandum of inappropriate contact with female pupils.

> Kate and Gerry McCann.



http://www.carter-ruck.com/Blog/?p=180

[jassi]

Thank you, but there was no need to re-post it, a simple referral to a post number would have sufficed.

[stephen25000]

You at least have seen the list that I provided! Just ignoring it, or not really reading, just scatter gun responding.

Fair enough.