Pro bono or Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA)?

[Mr Gray]

Out-of-Court Settlement. An agreement reached between the parties in a pending lawsuit that resolves the dispute to their mutual satisfaction and occurs without judicial intervention, supervision, or approval. An out-of-court settlement provides that the parties relinquish their rights to pursue judicial remedies.

[Miss Taken Identity]

In fact an out of court settlement can be made without the approval of the judge...I have provided a cite but it has been removed... interestingly it seems out of court settlements cannot usually be appealed.....so the express won't be asking for their money back

If it is ever determined that the libel settlement was incompetent then they would be asked to pay it back.. Happened before with  Geoffry Archer!

You are taking this thread all over the place. We can all quote about this and the next thing but this is soley about the McCanns  case. which was  dealt with at court! and all cites have been provided.

 So it doesn't really matter what you believe pro bono means OR what type of OOC settlements can be agreed. It is irrelevant in the McCanns case.

And this behavour does smack of trolling.

[Mr Gray]

If it is ever determined that the libel settlement was incompetent then they would be asked to pay it back.. Happened before with  Geoffry Archer!

You are taking this thread all over the place. We can all quote about this and the next thing but this is soley about the McCanns  case. which was  dealt with at court! and all cites have been provided.

 So it doesn't really matter what you believe pro bono means OR what type of OOC settlements can be agreed. It is irrelevant in the McCanns case.

And this behavour does smack of trolling.

Archer wasn't an out of court settlement

I've actually suggested the subject was dropped several times...but posters keep raising it again...perhaps now it can be left

[Angelo222]

Out-of-Court Settlement. An agreement reached between the parties in a pending lawsuit that resolves the dispute to their mutual satisfaction and occurs without judicial intervention, supervision, or approval. An out-of-court settlement provides that the parties relinquish their rights to pursue judicial remedies.

Interesting that you post this when you thought earlier that the out of court settlements in the McCann versus the UK media cases were done privately.  You were wrong of course as the court oversaw the settlement.

Snip

"The McCanns, who did not attend today's High Court hearing, said in a statement: "We are pleased that Express Newspapers have today admitted the utter falsity of the numerous grotesque and grossly defamatory allegations that their titles published about us on a sustained basis over many months.

"The exceptional publication of these apologies, together with today's statement of full apology in open court before Mr Justice Eady, was the only just and proper response by Express Newspapers following our complaint."

As part of the terms of settlement, a solicitor for Express Newspapers today also read out an apology before a High Court judge."

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582178/McCanns-pleased-as-Daily-Express-and-Daily-Star-pay-out-550000-damages.html

[Angelo222]

The bottom line to all this davel being that the lawyers acting for the McCanns ie Carter Ruck, would have to have raised proceedings in the High Court and in order to do that they would serve a copy of the writ on the defendants.

I await your retraction with interest.

[Angelo222]

If it is ever determined that the libel settlement was incompetent then they would be asked to pay it back.. Happened before with  Geoffry Archer!

What would happen would be that the papers would raise an action in the civil court to get their money back.

[Robittybob1]

In the case of perjury yes.

[Sunny]

I don't think you can commit perjury unless you have testified in court so that wouldn't apply in this case.  I have had a google and it appears it is virtually impossible to get money back from an out of court settlement, as Davel has said.

There may be exceptions of course but I didn't delve that far.

All IMO.

[Angelo222]

I don't think you can commit perjury unless you have testified in court so that wouldn't apply in this case.  I have had a google and it appears it is virtually impossible to get money back from an out of court settlement, as Davel has said.

There may be exceptions of course but I didn't delve that far.

All IMO.

If it can be shown that non-disclosure by one party led to the court making an order substantially different to that it would have otherwise have made, then any order can be altered or set aside.  The difficulty however is that funds are often spent or transferred so cannot be recouped.

[G-Unit]

No..the operative phrase is....out of court

They went court though. Not even the McCanns can just wander into a court, grab a judge and make statements.

In order to arrive in court an application has to be made and the court fee paid. It's the Queen's Bench Division which deals with defamation cases. A claim form is completed and in this case a fee of £10,000 would be paid as the claim would exceed £200K. The defendant is then notified by the claimant/his or her lawyer. The court is notified that the claim has been served on the defendant.

I don't think the Newspaper gave in at this point, because a court date was set. Ah agreement was reached after the court set a date for the trial, but before the trial commenced. That's why the solicitors turned up and read prepared statements before the judge.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court

[Mr Gray]

They went court though. Not even the McCanns can just wander into a court, grab a judge and make statements.

In order to arrive in court an application has to be made and the court fee paid. It's the Queen's Bench Division which deals with defamation cases. A claim form is completed and in this case a fee of £10,000 would be paid as the claim would exceed £200K. The defendant is then notified by the claimant/his or her lawyer. The court is notified that the claim has been served on the defendant.

I don't think the Newspaper gave in at this point, because a court date was set. Ah agreement was reached after the court set a date for the trial, but before the trial commenced. That's why the solicitors turned up and read prepared statements before the judge.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/queens-bench-division-bring-a-case-to-the-court

According to Angelo an out of court settlement can be ratified by the court...it is therefore possible that an agreement was reached and this hearing was simply to ratify the agreement and have declarations made in court by the express...we just do not know

An out of court settlement can be put in place via an order of the court...this may well be what this hearing was

[G-Unit]

According to Angelo an out of court settlement can be ratified by the court...it is therefore possible that an agreement was reached and this hearing was simply to ratify the agreement and have declarations made in court by the express...we just do not know

An out of court settlement can be put in place via an order of the court...this may well be what this hearing was

I have provided a cite which demonstrates how a damages case reaches court. I have seen nothing which suggests that a court hearing can be arranged to ratify an out of court agreement.

It would be helpful if you found information which supports your musings, as without it that's all they are.

[Mr Gray]

I have provided a cite which demonstrates how a damages case reaches court. I have seen nothing which suggests that a court hearing can be arranged to ratify an out of court agreement.

It would be helpful if you found information which supports your musings, as without it that's all they are.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Settlement_(litigation)

Have a read....it says an out of court settlement is often put in place by a court order....which obviously would require a court hearing


Quote...
he settlement of the lawsuit defines legal requirements of the parties, and is often put in force by an order of the court after a joint stipulation by the parties. In other situations (as where the claims have been satisfied by the payment of a certain sum of money) the plaintiff and defendant can simply file a notice that the case has been dismissed.


I have supplied countless cites to support my argument...every claim is supported by a cite

[Brietta]

Kate and Gerry McCann were forced to take legal action when they were defamed by the press many years ago ... and in more recent times when false information was again published concerning them by the Sunday Times.

These actions ... and actions taken by their friends who were also defamed by the press ... resulted in the award of damages ... the proceeds of which were paid directly into Madeleine's Fund.

Bearing in mind that Madeleine's Fund is in existence to finance the continuing search for her ... when no police force either here or in Portugal was actively doing so ... my opinion is, no fund = no search for Madeleine.

Not to worry that Madeleine's parents were libelled by the press in the most heinous way possible ... not to worry that the damages the press were forced to reluctantly cough up - (all of which had made money hand over fist in 'reporting' Madeleine's case and were therefore merely paying back a fraction of what they had made out of her)  - and replenish the Madeleine Fund.

Why is it my impression that debating whether or not the press should pay for its crime has everything to do with the chagrin that Madeleine's Fund was replenished as a result ... enabling her parents to keep the search for her going until Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria took up the reins of their legal responsibilities six years after Madeleine's disappearance.

[G-Unit]

Kate and Gerry McCann were forced to take legal action when they were defamed by the press many years ago ... and in more recent times when false information was again published concerning them by the Sunday Times.

These actions ... and actions taken by their friends who were also defamed by the press ... resulted in the award of damages ... the proceeds of which were paid directly into Madeleine's Fund.

Bearing in mind that Madeleine's Fund is in existence to finance the continuing search for her ... when no police force either here or in Portugal was actively doing so ... my opinion is, no fund = no search for Madeleine.

Not to worry that Madeleine's parents were libelled by the press in the most heinous way possible ... not to worry that the damages the press were forced to reluctantly cough up - (all of which had made money hand over fist in 'reporting' Madeleine's case and were therefore merely paying back a fraction of what they had made out of her)  - and replenish the Madeleine Fund.

Why is it my impression that debating whether or not the press should pay for its crime has everything to do with the chagrin that Madeleine's Fund was replenished as a result ... enabling her parents to keep the search for her going until Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria took up the reins of their legal responsibilities six years after Madeleine's disappearance.

I haven't seen anyone expressing 'chagrin' that Madeleine's Fund was replenished.