Given the Appellate Courts decision, is the libel trial a foregone conclusion?

[Montclair]

With the new judiciary map (mapa judiciária) to be implemented in September, I hope that this case and many others will not be dragging out for another 5 years. It seems that no one, except the government and the troika, want these changes. Some predict utter chaos.

[sadie]

With the new judiciary map (mapa judiciária) to be implemented in September, I hope that this case and many others will not be dragging out for another 5 years. It seems that no one, except the government and the troika, want these changes. Some predict utter chaos.

I wonder if this is Amarals so called Ace?

He knew this change in the Law was coming and deliberately dragged the case out?

[Brietta]

I wonder if this is Amarals so called Ace?

He knew this change in the Law was coming and deliberately dragged the case out?

He is obviously desperate to delay judgement in this trial … he did it when it was possible for him to win … so what’s another five years on top of the last five years, when it looks as if his star has waned and he is unwilling to take a chance that the judgement could go against him - as looks probable.

Wonder how he will spin deliberately prolonging an expensive lawsuit to his paying public when he is asking for additional funds.

[sadie]

I wonder if this is Amarals so called Ace?

He knew this change in the Law was coming and deliberately dragged the case out?

This will cause huge extra turmoil, and expence to the Mccanns .... and Amaral knows it.

[Alice Purjorick]

This will cause huge extra turmoil, and expence to the Mccanns .... and Amaral knows it.

That is always one of the risks with any legal action. With libel of course where the rules are that each party pays its own costs the gamble is "will the damages pay the legal fees". If not it is a Pyrrhic victory.

[Mr Gray]

That is always one of the risks with any legal action. With libel of course where the rules are that each party pays its own costs the gamble is "will the damages pay the legal fees". If not it is a Pyrrhic victory.

any victory which punishes amaral and vindicates the mccanns will be far from pyrrhic even if all the money goes to the lawyers

[Alice Purjorick]

any victory which punishes amaral and vindicates the mccanns will be far from pyrrhic even if all the money goes to the lawyers

You have failed to think that through properly sir.

[Montclair]

This will cause huge extra turmoil, and expence to the Mccanns .... and Amaral knows it.

AFAIK, it was Isabel Duarte who caused the latest delay. BTW, this delay will cause turmoil and expenses for all concerned, not just the parents.

[Carana]

AFAIK, it was Isabel Duarte who caused the latest delay. BTW, this delay will cause turmoil and expenses for all concerned, not just the parents.

Can we clarify what this is about?

[sadie]

AFAIK, it was Isabel Duarte who caused the latest delay. BTW, this delay will cause turmoil and expenses for all concerned, not just the parents.

No Amaral caused it by not declaring his income as demanded weeks earlier

[stephen25000]

No Amaral caused it by not declaring his income as demanded weeks earlier

Can you prove that ?

[Mr Gray]

You have failed to think that through properly sir.

how can you possibly know that to be true

[Air Con]

He is obviously desperate to delay judgement in this trial … he did it when it was possible for him to win … so what’s another five years on top of the last five years, when it looks as if his star has waned and he is unwilling to take a chance that the judgement could go against him - as looks probable.

Wonder how he will spin deliberately prolonging an expensive lawsuit to his paying public when he is asking for additional funds.

What delays in the case have been caused by Amaral and Mccann?

[ferryman]

A question for Jean-Pierre.

What bearing, if any, will the overturning of the injunction have on the libel trial? is

ETA:

I suppose I should clarify

What I mean is this.  The judgment overturning the injunction found that the book is based on the files.

It isn't, but ignore that.

If the court found that it was (based on the files) does that mean that the McCanns cannot challenge  the apparently "factual" basis of the book?

[Carana]

I'm interested in Jean-Pierre's view as well.

I'm not so sure any more that they do need to challenge the content...

Art. 484 (Action injurious to personal standing or good name): "Whoever affirms or disseminates a fact capable of prejudicing the credit or good name of any person, private individual or legal person, is responsible for the damage caused."

ARTIGO 484º
(Ofensa do crédito ou do bom nome)

Quem afirmar ou difundir um facto capaz de prejudicar o crédito ou o bom nome de qualquer pessoa, singular ou colectiva, responde pelos danos causados.

It says fact, not false statement.