Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

Just to add to your ire.


The Supreme Court found in Amarals favour on Jan 31, 2017.  He was awarded £500,000.


How come he hasn't yet picked up the lolly?
 
Has some news been leaked in 2017 from the Police Forces that shows that the case is solved, and that the decision of the Supreme Court was wrong ?   Because of this, has he decided to back off and also make his public announcement in 2017 that he has changed his mind about the Mccanns involvement ?


Only thoughts ....

Are you sure that you've got your facts right?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So just how much money is Gonc expecting to get out of the McCanns? At the time we were led to believe they were to be financially ruined by the Supreme Court judgement , but perhaps not?

[The General]

Immaterial to my question.

ooooooooooooooh. Touchy. YEEEOUCH!
Sheesh, I was only asking a question.

[G-Unit]

So just how much money is Gonc expecting to get out of the McCanns? At the time we were led to believe they were to be financially ruined by the Supreme Court judgement , but perhaps not?

Amaral and his co-defendants should have already received the costs they spent on defending themselves, which is what the Supreme Court ordered.

[Brietta]

Amaral and his co-defendants should have already received the costs they spent on defending themselves, which is what the Supreme Court ordered.

Did Amaral cough up on the award to the McCanns or did he wait until the fat lady finished her aria ???

Were I you I would content myself until such time as she finishes her encore and having taken her bow ... leaves the stage.

[Brietta]

Amaral and his co-defendants should have already received the costs they spent on defending themselves, which is what the Supreme Court ordered.

Then the appeal fund money for his defence will be directed where?  Wasn't there some talk of him and a children's charity?

[G-Unit]

Did Amaral cough up on the award to the McCanns or did he wait until the fat lady finished her aria ???

Were I you I would content myself until such time as she finishes her encore and having taken her bow ... leaves the stage.

The case against Amaral and his co-defendants was appealed, which allowed them to delay their payments pending the result of their appeal. The case against Amaral by the McCanns ended on 31st December 2017. The case at the ECHR is between the McCanns and the State of Portugal. One condition of their application being accepted is that any money owing to the State of Portugal has to have been paid.

[misty]

The case against Amaral and his co-defendants was appealed, which allowed them to delay their payments pending the result of their appeal. The case against Amaral by the McCanns ended on 31st December 2017. The case at the ECHR is between the McCanns and the State of Portugal. One condition of their application being accepted is that any money owing to the State of Portugal has to have been paid.

the court fees had to be paid up front by each party before each round of hearings (think about PJGA GFM appeal) so nothing is owed to the Portuguese state. McCanns are responsible for their own lawyers' fees & Amaral his own. It's unclear whether or not McCanns have complied with the Appeal court judgement & reimbursed Amaral for his costs.

[G-Unit]

the court fees had to be paid up front by each party before each round of hearings (think about PJGA GFM appeal) so nothing is owed to the Portuguese state. McCanns are responsible for their own lawyers' fees & Amaral his own. It's unclear whether or not McCanns have complied with the Appeal court judgement & reimbursed Amaral for his costs.

Those being sued may have to pay fees upfront, but if they are found not guilty they can surely claim those fees back? Anything else would be an injustice.

[Mr Gray]

Those being sued may have to pay fees upfront, but if they are found not guilty they can surely claim those fees back? Anything else would be an injustice.

The court usually makes an order for such costs on a case by case basis.....I think the verdict was an injustice.
aS I understand if thee court felt that the Mccanns clim had some validity they may well not order costs against them

[G-Unit]

The court usually makes an order for such costs on a case by case basis.....I think the verdict was an injustice.
aS I understand if thee court felt that the Mccanns clim had some validity they may well not order costs against them

You can think what you like, but the McCann's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed and they were ordered to pay the costs.

[Mr Gray]

You can think what you like, but the McCann's appeal to the Supreme Court was dismissed and they were ordered to pay the costs.

Court costs as I understand... Can you provide a cite that they were ordered to pay amarals lawyers fees... Otherwise you are just thinking what you like

[jassi]

He was crowd-funded for his defence, so maybe not an issue

[G-Unit]

Court costs as I understand... Can you provide a cite that they were ordered to pay amarals lawyers fees... Otherwise you are just thinking what you like

Can you provide a cite that lawyers fees are included in court costs? Otherwise your post is immaterial.

[Mr Gray]

Can you provide a cite that lawyers fees are included in court costs? Otherwise your post is immaterial.

As you don't seem to understand precisely what you are talking about what's the point.  Whe amaral was awarded costs... Was that court costs or lawyers fees... I don't know for sure and it looks like you don't either