Pro bono or Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA)?

[Mr Gray]

You're not serious Dave?   Threats mean nothing when it comes to libel action.

I'm very serious....CR send a letter alleging libel....the express apologize and pay damages....no writ issued

[Mr Gray]

You're not serious Dave?   Threats mean nothing when it comes to libel action.

They do when they come from CR....Gerry said a CFA was not necessary....so on what basis would a writ have been drawn up

[John]

I'm very serious....CR send a letter alleging libel....the express apologize and pay damages....no writ issued

That's not how it works Dave.  Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter.  Its absurd frankly.

This is becoming silly now.

[Angelo222]

They do when they come from CR....Gerry said a CFA was not necessary....so on what basis would a writ have been drawn up

CR    

[Mr Gray]

That's not how it works Dave.  Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter.  Its absurd frankly.

This is becoming silly now.

not just based on a letter......a series of discussions following a letter....you are claiming a writ was drawn up...gerry said a CFA was not necessary...so on what basis of payment would this alleged writ have been drawn up..

[Mr Gray]

I think you have answered your own question. The writ would have been lodged and served on the basis of a CFA.

Gerry said a CFA was not necessary....

[Sunny]

That's not how it works Dave.  Nobody will pay out £100,000's on the basis of a letter.  Its absurd frankly.

This is becoming silly now.

John it has been sadly silly for days. Gerry McCann has already admitted having a CFA in place an we know CR expected to be paid, for which I can't blame them.

I am sorry to have to to point out that when I joined this forum I was expecting every member to provide a cite or back down and either modify their posts or apologise for misleading. Sadly this too doesn't seem to be in place here at least not in all instances anyway this thread a case in point.

[Mr Gray]

John it has been sadly silly for days. Gerry McCann has already admitted having a CFA in place an we know CR expected to be paid, for which I can't blame them.

I am sorry to have to to point out that when I joined this forum I was expecting every member to provide a cite or back down and either modify their posts or apologise for misleading. Sadly this too doesn't seem to be in place here at least not in all instances anyway this thread a case in point.

I have provided a cite several times where gerry states a CFA was not necessary...have you not seen it..

I should mention that Carter-Ruck made clear that they would be willing to act for us in our libel dispute on the basis of a Conditional Fee Agreement, albeit that in the end
this was not necessary as Express Newspapers and Associated Newspapers did not contest our complaints. However, had it not been for the availability of a CFA, it would have been very difficult - if not impossible - for Kate and I to have brought the complaint as we do not have the resources to take on large media organisations in this way.


this claim i have not provided cites is totally untrue..

[Sunny]

And I have already given you a cite where they said a CFA was in place.

Which is it, certainly not PB that is clear.

Perhaps they didn't need to use the CFA because the Express caved in albeit a CFA was in place should they need it.

[Mr Gray]

And I have already given you a cite where they said a CFA was in place.

Which is it, certainly not PB that is clear.

Perhaps they didn't need to use the CFA because the Express caved in albeit a CFA was in place should they need it.

you have not supplied a cite confirming a CFA was in place....that was your interpretation of the statement...

[Vertigo Swirl]

And I have already given you a cite where they said a CFA was in place.

Which is it, certainly not PB that is clear.

Perhaps they didn't need to use the CFA because the Express caved in albeit a CFA was in place should they need it.

On what basis was the work undertaken by Carter Ruck then if the CFA was never activated?

[Robittybob1]

Not in a UK libel case it isn't...it's extremely important..
Let me rephrase it

They have the RIGHT to be considered INNOCENT....that's important in a libel case...very important

I hope you are right.

[Mr Gray]

Note it was not me who revived this topic ...that was supposed to have been closed...but posts directed towards me taht I should be at liberty to answer

[Mr Gray]

I hope you are right.

I am right...libel law in the uk is quite clear

[Sunny]

On what basis was the work undertaken by Carter Ruck then if the CFA was never activated?

On a retainer (as per Adam Tudor). So not free

Mr Tudor: Yes. My partners and I talked about it. We have a committee of partners that looks at whether or not a case is on a no win, no fee basis, as you probably heard from my partner, Mark Thompson. We did that with Kate and Gerry's case. It was a longer, more difficult discussion than would ordinarily be the case because of the extraordinary nature, volume and so on. We sent the complaints to The Express and The Star, at which point we were acting on a normal retainer. We indicated to Kate and Gerry and we told The Express and The Star at that time that if the matter was not resolved we would indeed go on to a no win, no fee arrangement.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200809/cmselect/cmcumeds/uc275-iii/uc27502.htm