Can Amaral sue for damages?

[stephen25000]

Loss of earnings in relation to what?  It can't be from loss of sales of his book - as just as the McCann had no way of quantifying how many people believed Madeleine was dead as a result of reading his book - he has no way of quantifying how many people would have bought his book if it had remained on sale.      Those who had already bought it would not not be buying it again and thanks to his his fans - the book was freely available on line anyway.

He can't claim for loss of earnings because of being unemployed - as that was his own choice.

So what could he claim for?

The only people I can see who would qualify to be sued  are those who distributed his book for free on line - and without his permission apparently.


AIMHO

It didn't need Amaral for people!e to believe Madeleine was dead.

Why do you persist in this in the myth that it was all down to him ?

He clearly lost earnings and would he have left the PJ, but for the Mccanns ?

[John]

It didn't need Amaral for people!e to believe Madeleine was dead.

Why do you persist in this in the myth that it was all down to him ?

He clearly lost earnings and would he have left the PJ, but for the Mccanns ?

There will be two aspects to any potential claim, namely, loss of earnings and damages.

[ferryman]

There will be two aspects to any potential claim, namely, loss of earnings and damages.

Loss of earnings and damages?

For what?

Proclaiming (I will defer to the mealy-mouthed) that Kate and Gerry 'caused the death' (of Madeleine) with an overdose of calpol, when there is nothing to contradict the McCanns' insistence that, while they had calpol with them on that holiday (an odd thing to 'admit' if they had something sinister to hide in respect of its use) they didn't use it.

Proclaiming that Harrison said Madeleine was 'buried' (somewhere or another), when Harrison frankly admitted he had no clue what happened to Madeleine, nor even whether she was alive or dead.

Proclaiming that he (Amaral) corrected and contradicted Prior on interpretation of the forensic results, and that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest.

These are all false allegations that denigrate(d) the McCanns

And people talk about loss of earnings and damages.

To Amaral?

Really?

[Brietta]

There will be two aspects to any potential claim, namely, loss of earnings and damages.

Whoever the Supreme Court rules in favour of ... there is still the option of the European Court to be considered.

[stephen25000]

Loss of earnings and damages?

For what?

Proclaiming (I will defer to the mealy-mouthed) that Kate and Gerry 'caused the death' (of Madeleine) with an overdose of calpol, when there is nothing to contradict the McCanns' insistence that, while they had calpol with them on that holiday (an odd thing to 'admit' if they had something sinister to hide in respect of its use) they didn't use it.

Proclaiming that Harrison said Madeleine was 'buried' (somewhere or another), when Harrison frankly admitted he had no clue what happened to Madeleine, nor even whether she was alive or dead.

Proclaiming that he (Amaral) corrected and contradicted Prior on interpretation of the forensic results, and that Prior rang the FSS to berate them on the subject of the PJ's powers of arrest.

These are all false allegations that denigrate(d) the McCanns

And people talk about loss of earnings and damages.

To Amaral?

Really?

Whose actions initiated this case ferryman ?

It wasn't Amaral, was it .

He has been repeatedly attacked by the McCann's and their devoted followers for doing his job.

Now if the McCann's had done theirs.......

[Alice Purjorick]

Whoever the Supreme Court rules in favour of ... there is still the option of the European Court to be considered.

Which particular European Court had you in mind ?

[stephen25000]

Whoever the Supreme Court rules in favour of ... there is still the option of the European Court to be considered.

In roughly 5 years time.

[ferryman]

Whose actions initiated this case ferryman ?

It wasn't Amaral, was it .

He has been repeatedly attacked by the McCann's and their devoted followers for doing his job.

Now if the McCann's had done theirs.......

Whose actions caused what?

The libel trial?

Amaral's action in writing a book of lies and smear caused that.

And he may be set to profit from it.

Disgraceful.

[stephen25000]

Whose actions caused what?

The libel trial?

Amaral's action in writing a book of lies and smear caused that.

And he may be set to profit from it.

Disgraceful.

It's always been the McCann's, right from the start.

No doubt about it.

[Benice]

I might be able to clarify this particular issue.  Gonçalo Amaral has lost a substantial amount of income due to the restraint order which the McCanns sought and were granted against him.  He will have to provide a break down of losses and potential losses attributable to his pursuers.  In order to agreed those losses, the Court will look at several factors.  At the end of the day though, the damages should be agreed but if that is not possible then the judge will decide what is fair and commensurate.

The McCanns sued Amaral for £1 million so the question too is, what justified such a sum?

For the reasons I gave in my previous post - I don't think it is possible for him to do that because there is no physical way of quantifying figures.

Making his book available for free on the internet without his permission may be a breach of copyright and that may give him a reason to sue, providing he knows who made the book available.    Although I don't know enough about copyright laws to do more than wonder about that. 

What are the 'several factors' to which you refer?

IMO the amount claimed by the McCanns was to ensure that he made no profit on the back of their daughter via his book plus all the other fees he charged for TV interviews etc etc.  I think that was a perfectly reasonable stance to take.

[Mr Gray]

There will be two aspects to any potential claim, namely, loss of earnings and damages.

It is entirely wrong to assume Amaral has the legal right to any claim

[G-Unit]

It is entirely wrong to assume Amaral has the legal right to any claim

Anyone with enough funds can sue others. It's winning that's the problem.

[mercury]

Anyone with enough funds can sue others. It's winning that's the problem.

Snortle

[Mr Gray]

Anyone with enough funds can sue others. It's winning that's the problem.

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

[G-Unit]

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

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.