Pro bono or Conditional Fee Arrangement (CFA)?

[Alice Purjorick]

Totally correct.  Pro bono means never to be paid and that was not the situation with CR.  I think you already pointed out to davel that the no win...no fee system is not pro bono.

A little knowledge is a bad thing.
Understanding that pro bono is a diminution of pro bono publico , a legal expression relating to a specific legal concept and is not just a posh way of saying buckshee, would help.
 

[Angelo222]

A little knowledge is a bad thing.
Understanding that pro bono is a diminution of pro bono publico , a legal expression relating to a specific legal concept and is not just a posh way of saying buckshee, would help.

I cannot understand how anyone could be confused about the issue. GM admitted that there was a CFA in place but they didn't need to use it as the media rolled over and agreed to pay up.  The McCanns got paid, CR got their fees paid, apologies were made in the newspapers, everybody moved on.

[Mr Gray]

It is clear that you haven't a baldy clue about how civil actions work let know understand what a writ is. If I understand you correctly you think that the McCann lawyers sent some charming letters to the newspapers asking for a huge pile of dosh as reparation because they published some nasty stuff in the national press about their client. That said newspapers threw up their arms in despair and woe betide agreed to part with their disgracefully hard earned cash in exchange for not being dragged thru the courts.

Have I missed anything because that is the biggest pile of bs that I have read in eons.

most of the bs is coming from you.....I have personal experience of how actions for damages work...and pre action protocol is pretty much what you have described..

letter from CR to express who pass it to their solicitors...they decide if its defensible...if not they agree a figure with CR plus agreed method of apology...no involvement of court at all...that is precisely how its done....in this case CR may have made an appliction for a court order to enforce it..


your post  that both sides presented their arguments to the judge who told them to go away and reach a settlement is pure codswallop for which you have produced no evidence or cite...Ill leave those reading to decide who the proper charlie is

[Alice Purjorick]

I cannot understand how anyone could be confused about the issue. GM admitted that there was a CFA in place but they didn't need to use it as the media rolled over and agreed to pay up.  The McCanns got paid, CR got their fees paid, apologies were made in the newspapers, everybody moved on.

Nor I.

[Mr Gray]

Totally correct.  Pro bono means never to be paid and that was not the situation with CR.  I think you already pointed out to davel that the no win...no fee system is not pro bono.

CR would never have represented the parents in a libel action against the British Press had they not been assured of getting their fat fee.  Another company milking Maddie's demise.  How many £ millions have been pocketed by these caring corporations as a result of a missing child?

you obviously have not followed the posts...cite for where I have claimed pro bono is the same as  CFA

[Alice Purjorick]

most of the bs is coming from you.....I have personal experience of how actions for damages work...and pre action protocol is pretty much what you have described..

letter from CR to express who pass it to their solicitors...they decide if its defensible...if not they agree a figure with CR plus agreed method of apology...no involvement of court at all...that is precisely how its done....in this case CR may have made an appliction for a court order to enforce it..


your post  that both sides presented their arguments to the judge who told them to go away and reach a settlement is pure codswallop for which you have produced no evidence or cite...Ill leave those reading to decide who the proper charlie is

You are. Your understanding of the set up is piss poor your unsubstantiated boasting notwithstanding.
You lost this argument several days ago and are now becoming a threeshifts a day boor.

[Mr Gray]

You are. Your understanding of the set up is piss poor your unsubstantiated boasting notwithstanding.
You lost this argument several days ago and are now becoming a threeshifts a day boor.

all in your rather limited opinion...or have you forgotten thats all your posts are...if you had any real knowledge you would understand its angelos knowledge that is piss poor

[Brietta]

Well the good thing is we are asking G-unit for a cite.  We might be lucky with this request.

Might have more of a chance of winning the Euro Millions ... I have twice requested a cite without success ... but Heigh-Ho, I'm only a moderator after all so may as well expect to be treated like one of the Seven.

[Mr Gray]

Court’s powers in connection with an offer of amends
3.1  Sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 1996 make provision for a person who has made a statement which is alleged to be defamatory to make an offer to make amends. Section 3 provides for the court to assist in the process of making amends.

3.2  A claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1996 made other than in existing proceedings may be made under CPR Part 8 –

(1) where the parties agree on the steps to make amends, and the sole purpose of the claim is for the court to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled; or

Everything I have posted was before I had seen this.....it totally supports my claims re pre action protocol...




so the Express settled out of ourt and the sole reason for the courts involvement was...to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled;...imo

[Mr Gray]

Might have more of a chance of winning the Euro Millions ... I have twice requested a cite without success ... but Heigh-Ho, I'm only a moderator after all so may as well expect to be treated like one of the Seven.

both gunit and angelo have claimed the court appearance was to hear the claim....yet neither ahve provided a cite to support it

[Brietta]

Court’s powers in connection with an offer of amends
3.1  Sections 2 to 4 of the Defamation Act 1996 make provision for a person who has made a statement which is alleged to be defamatory to make an offer to make amends. Section 3 provides for the court to assist in the process of making amends.

3.2  A claim under section 3 of the Defamation Act 1996 made other than in existing proceedings may be made under CPR Part 8 –

(1) where the parties agree on the steps to make amends, and the sole purpose of the claim is for the court to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled; or

Everything I have posted was before I had seen this.....it totally supports my claims re pre action protocol...




so the Express settled out of ourt and the sole reason for the courts involvement was...to make an order under section 3(3) for an order that the offer be fulfilled;

Just am opinion ... but it stands to reason that there would have to be a legal method of ensuring that agreements are implemented to avoid having to return to court at a later date.

[Robittybob1]

Defamation Act 1996  - great

[Mr Gray]

Just am opinion ... but it stands to reason that there would have to be a legal method of ensuring that agreements are implemented to avoid having to return to court at a later date.

as I understand by having the agreement as a court order rather than a simpe contract...it makes a breach of the court order..contempt of court....a lot more serious than breach of contract.......LOL

[Robittybob1]

You have all had your fun.  Stop abusing each other.

[faithlilly]

the did some initial work pro bono...imo.....as  have alraedy explained....other fees were recovered from the newspaers...as i have alraedy explained

CR were on a retainer, Adam Tudor confirmed this in front of the select committee. There was no work done for free. Why do you insist there was when even the main players say otherwise?