Can Amaral sue for damages?

[Carana]

Amaral won't need to sue for damages caused by the freezing injunction if he wins in the Supreme Court. Applicants for such injunctions undertake to compensate the defendant if the injunction should not have been granted.

Are you sure about that?

[Robittybob1]

Amaral won't need to sue for damages caused by the freezing injunction if he wins in the Supreme Court. Applicants for such injunctions undertake to compensate the defendant if the injunction should not have been granted.

was the money ever paid over?

[Angelo222]

Amaral may well have no grounds to sue the McCanns on the basis that it was the court who froze his funds not the McCanns. You and others are making an assumption when you have no real knowledge of the legal position.
What happened to the sceptics claim that Murat was suing Jane Tanner
Another load of rubbish

Nobody sues the court, do you understand anything about how the justice system works?

[Angelo222]

Amaral won't need to sue for damages caused by the freezing injunction if he wins in the Supreme Court. Applicants for such injunctions undertake to compensate the defendant if the injunction should not have been granted.

A court will have to decide what constitutes reasonable compensation.

[ferryman]

A court will have to decide what constitutes reasonable compensation.

For the McCanns?

At least what the first-instance judge recommended; possibly more.

[Robittybob1]

Nobody sues the court, do you understand anything about how the justice system works?

The taxpayers then, the Portuguese Government whatever.  It shouldn't be the the McCanns who have to repay Amaral if the Court awarded the money and it was used up since then.  It would be a different situation if the funds have been frozen till all the appeals have been decided.  In which case no money has changed hands at all as yet.

[jassi]

The taxpayers then, the Portuguese Government whatever. It shouldn't be the the McCanns who have to repay Amaral if the Court awarded the money and it was used up since then.  It would be a different situation if the funds have been frozen till all the appeals have been decided.  In which case no money has changed hands at all as yet.

Don't be silly. If a Court awards costs against someone, who do you think should pay, if not that person?

[sadie]

Don't be silly. If a Court awards costs against someone, who do you think should pay, if not that person?

IF and it is a very BIG IF, the Courts made a mistake in awarding costs against Amaral, then surely they should take responsiblity and repay those costs from government funds.  IMO.

No-one could expect the party receiving the costs to suddenly have to produce said costs
again at a moments notice, surely ?   IF it was the Courts mistake.

[Robittybob1]

Don't be silly. If a Court awards costs against someone, who do you think should pay, if not that person?

that is not my point.  My point involves the appeals and who should compensate then.  Sadie sees it my way.
Have the McCanns been able to spend the money that was awarded in the first judgement or has it been always pending on the outcomes of the appeal court and now the Supreme Court?

[jassi]

that is not my point.  My point involves the appeals and who should compensate then.  Sadie sees it my way.
Have the McCanns been able to spend the money that was awarded in the first judgement or has it been always pending on the outcomes of the appeal court and now the Supreme Court?

Don't see that it matters. If they lose, they will have to pay up, whether or not they have the money at hand  to do so. Not sure how it would pan out in practice, but if they refused,they would be in contempt of court,  would lose all credibility and the Portuguese court may well pursue for the monies in a British court.

I think we need to wait and see the result of the appeal.

[ferryman]

I would hope the Portuguese state has neither stomach nor (in the name of decency) appetite for a conflict with the European court.

Somewhere in that appeal-court ruling is a reference to a requirement not to exceed bounds of good faith.

A hefty dose of mind-bending drugs would be required to conclude other than that Amaral exceeded bounds of good faith in writing his book.

[G-Unit]

was the money ever paid over?

The McCanns applied for an injunction to freeze Amaral's assets. They froze his assets so they could have them when they won the damages trial.

At this moment in time they have lost the damages trial. In law Amaral is innocent.

An innocent man has been deprived of his assets for seven years. If the judgement stands he will get his assets back, probably with interest added to them.

Is that it? If someone freezes your funds for seven years is it enough that you get them back with interest? I think the seven years of being prevented from spending your own money will also be taken into account somewhere along the line. It is the responsibility of those who applied for the freezing order to compensate the person who suffered because of it.

[Robittybob1]

The McCanns applied for an injunction to freeze Amaral's assets. They froze his assets so they could have them when they won the damages trial.

At this moment in time they have lost the damages trial. In law Amaral is innocent.

An innocent man has been deprived of his assets for seven years. If the judgement stands he will get his assets back, probably with interest added to them.

Is that it? If someone freezes your funds for seven years is it enough that you get them back with interest? I think the seven years of being prevented from spending your own money will also be taken into account somewhere along the line. It is the responsibility of those who applied for the freezing order to compensate the person who suffered because of it.

So if the McCanns also win the case they will get the interest for the last 7 years as well I presume.

[mercury]

So if the McCanns also win the case they will get the interest for the last 7 years as well I presume.

They asked for interest on top of their damages claim when they brought the case (because it never was about money you see)
Presumably if they ultimately win they will get the interest claimed

[Robittybob1]

They asked for interest on top of their damages claim when they brought the case (because it never was about money you see)
Presumably if they ultimately win they will get the interest claimed

That will come in handy.