LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 5 of 8 • Share
Page 5 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Smethurst's libel claim settled
Libel cases update:
SMETHURST
Update - Summary: Edward Smethurst’s claim against me has been settled on the following agreed terms:
a) I will pay the sum of £2,500 agreed damages to Mr Smethurst, without any formal admission of liability. Mr Smethurst has said via Carter-Ruck that he will pay this sum into the Find Madeleine Fund
b) I will in addition pay Mr Smethurst’s reasonable legal costs to date, to be assessed by the court if not agreed between me and him (see below)
c) Carter-Ruck will draw up an undertaking for me to sign which will cover the contents of anything that I may or may not publish about him in the future; the terms of that undertaking to be agreed between us.
The hearing yesterday (7 December):
Carter-Ruck had four people representing them at yesterday’s hearing, which was in Room E117, the chambers of Master Victoria McCloud. They were:
(i) Jacob Dean, barrister
(ii) Isabel Hudson, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck
(iii) Two female assistants.
Mr Smethurst’s claim, issued by the court on 9 August 2011, was originally for £100,000 damages.
This was primarily a costs management hearing in which Carter-Ruck were asking the Master to approve their ‘costs budget’. This set out, in a series of complex tables, how they had calculated their costs to date (£28,390) and their likely future costs (£143,086.50), which totalled £171, 476.50.
Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget. The end result was that Carter-Ruck’s costs budget schedule, most unusually, was rejected by the Master, who ordered Carter-Ruck at their own expense to submit another one. Carter-Ruck were given leave to appeal if they wished.
The hearing opened with Jacob Dean, for Mr Smethurst, being able to make a half-hour opening summary of the case. In this address, he set out that the following legal issues to be settled in the case:
a) whether any or all of the comments I made about Mr Smethurst were justified (strictly true)
b) whether, if not justified, they were ‘fair comment’
c) what was the actual meaning of some of the words I used
d) whether I had acted promptly to remove any offending words.
He also claimed that Mr Smethurst had no control on Facebook over who became his friends on his Facebook page. That meant that I would have to have proved to the court that certain named friends of his were there as a matter of his conscious decision. Jacob Dean claimed that anyone could become Mr Smethurst’s ‘Facebook Friend’.
At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial. If the case had proceeded, there would have been a 1-day summary trial before a judge. If at that hearing the judge thought that I had an arguable case, the matter would have been set down for a 3-day trial at which all the legal arguments mentioned above would have been considered.
The Master was especially interested in the following aspects of the matter:
a) whether or not I had promptly removed any offending material
b) whether or not Mr Smethurst had followed the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which requires libel claimants to give potential defendants an opportunity to remove any allegedly libellous publications. The Protocol sets out quite clearly that court action should be ‘a last resort’
c) whether or not Mr Smethurst should have issued proceedings on 9 August when I had met all the demands of Carter-Ruck’s initial two letters of 4 August
d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
e) whether the steps taken in the proceedings to date by Carter-Ruck were proportionate, having regard in particular to my prompt removal of any offending material.
At the conclusion of the case, the Master said that she was “fully seized of all the issues relating to the need for claimants to follow the pre-Action Protocol and as to proportionality”.
In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.
Edward Smethurst, via his lawyers Carter-Ruck, has asked me to remove the last two sentences from this statement, and I have agreed to do so and removed them today, 4 February 2012 - Tony Bennett
SMETHURST
Update - Summary: Edward Smethurst’s claim against me has been settled on the following agreed terms:
a) I will pay the sum of £2,500 agreed damages to Mr Smethurst, without any formal admission of liability. Mr Smethurst has said via Carter-Ruck that he will pay this sum into the Find Madeleine Fund
b) I will in addition pay Mr Smethurst’s reasonable legal costs to date, to be assessed by the court if not agreed between me and him (see below)
c) Carter-Ruck will draw up an undertaking for me to sign which will cover the contents of anything that I may or may not publish about him in the future; the terms of that undertaking to be agreed between us.
The hearing yesterday (7 December):
Carter-Ruck had four people representing them at yesterday’s hearing, which was in Room E117, the chambers of Master Victoria McCloud. They were:
(i) Jacob Dean, barrister
(ii) Isabel Hudson, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck
(iii) Two female assistants.
Mr Smethurst’s claim, issued by the court on 9 August 2011, was originally for £100,000 damages.
This was primarily a costs management hearing in which Carter-Ruck were asking the Master to approve their ‘costs budget’. This set out, in a series of complex tables, how they had calculated their costs to date (£28,390) and their likely future costs (£143,086.50), which totalled £171, 476.50.
Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget. The end result was that Carter-Ruck’s costs budget schedule, most unusually, was rejected by the Master, who ordered Carter-Ruck at their own expense to submit another one. Carter-Ruck were given leave to appeal if they wished.
The hearing opened with Jacob Dean, for Mr Smethurst, being able to make a half-hour opening summary of the case. In this address, he set out that the following legal issues to be settled in the case:
a) whether any or all of the comments I made about Mr Smethurst were justified (strictly true)
b) whether, if not justified, they were ‘fair comment’
c) what was the actual meaning of some of the words I used
d) whether I had acted promptly to remove any offending words.
He also claimed that Mr Smethurst had no control on Facebook over who became his friends on his Facebook page. That meant that I would have to have proved to the court that certain named friends of his were there as a matter of his conscious decision. Jacob Dean claimed that anyone could become Mr Smethurst’s ‘Facebook Friend’.
At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial. If the case had proceeded, there would have been a 1-day summary trial before a judge. If at that hearing the judge thought that I had an arguable case, the matter would have been set down for a 3-day trial at which all the legal arguments mentioned above would have been considered.
The Master was especially interested in the following aspects of the matter:
a) whether or not I had promptly removed any offending material
b) whether or not Mr Smethurst had followed the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which requires libel claimants to give potential defendants an opportunity to remove any allegedly libellous publications. The Protocol sets out quite clearly that court action should be ‘a last resort’
c) whether or not Mr Smethurst should have issued proceedings on 9 August when I had met all the demands of Carter-Ruck’s initial two letters of 4 August
d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
e) whether the steps taken in the proceedings to date by Carter-Ruck were proportionate, having regard in particular to my prompt removal of any offending material.
At the conclusion of the case, the Master said that she was “fully seized of all the issues relating to the need for claimants to follow the pre-Action Protocol and as to proportionality”.
In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.
Edward Smethurst, via his lawyers Carter-Ruck, has asked me to remove the last two sentences from this statement, and I have agreed to do so and removed them today, 4 February 2012 - Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Tony, re: the statement that Mr Smethurst has no control over his Facebook friends, as far as I am aware having used Facebook, people have to send a friend request which you can accept, or ignore. People can't just make themselves your friend, so I would question that as it may well help your case.
Apart from that, good luck with the it all and hope it is not too stressful.
Apart from that, good luck with the it all and hope it is not too stressful.
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Thanks Tony for sharing that.
As you say given the inequality of the case (i e ££''s) you were in between a rock and a hard place.
By the way as regards facebook you have to accept friends before they appear on your account so any friends he may have had he (or someone else using his account) would have had to consciously accept them.
As you say given the inequality of the case (i e ££''s) you were in between a rock and a hard place.
By the way as regards facebook you have to accept friends before they appear on your account so any friends he may have had he (or someone else using his account) would have had to consciously accept them.
____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"
Gillyspot- Posts : 1470
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 9
Join date : 2011-06-13
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Yes, I just whizzed off and checked out Facebook FAQ's, Mr Smethurst definately would have had to accept a friend request. I would strongly contest the assertion that he had no control as it simply NOT TRUE! I think it grossly unfair that they would mention this without checking their facts, a lie must not enter the case!!
____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors- Posts : 2458
Activity : 2685
Likes received : 25
Join date : 2011-07-31
Facebook friends
This post has been removed from the forum by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst.
uppatoffee- Posts : 626
Activity : 645
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2011-09-14
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Yes, I just whizzed off and checked out Facebook FAQ's, Mr Smethurst definately would have had to accept a friend request. I would strongly contest the assertion that he had no control as it simply NOT TRUE! I think it grossly unfair that they would mention this without checking their facts, a lie must not enter the case!!
Facebook prompts that you have a friend request and asks if you wish to accept the friend. Smethurst had a relatively small amount of FB friends.
Cheshire Cat- Madeleine Foundation
- Posts : 676
Activity : 821
Likes received : 58
Join date : 2010-08-16
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Carter Ruck would have known this and at the end of the day they are paid to help their clients, hoping Tony didn't know this, which is precisely why I do not trust anything they have to say.
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Yes you have to personally confirm a Facebook friend, though I think one of the 3 was a friend of one of the friends. But didn't another family member of smethurst have the same 1 or 2 Facebook friends too?
The very best of luck Tony
The very best of luck Tony
____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd- Posts : 4151
Activity : 4400
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-07-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Stella wrote:Carter Ruck would have known this and at the end of the day they are paid to help their clients, hoping Tony didn't know this, which is precisely why I do not trust anything they have to say.
What I should have said is, "hoping Tony and the Judge didn't know this".
What's the betting the Judge does not use FB and like me and many others, have no idea about these sorts of things.
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Stella wrote:Stella wrote:Carter Ruck would have known this and at the end of the day they are paid to help their clients, hoping Tony didn't know this, which is precisely why I do not trust anything they have to say.
What I should have said is, "hoping Tony and the Judge didn't know this".
What's the betting the Judge does not use FB and like me and many others, have no idea about these sorts of things.
the judge would have done his homework and will know. But its not about this, these rich folk look after each other in an unwritten law so to speak
____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd- Posts : 4151
Activity : 4400
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-07-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
I'm not sure about that one JD, how could any Judge have the time to do all the homework on every aspect of every case, they have to preside over? Would time allow this?
Tony needs to address this with her.
Tony needs to address this with her.
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Stella wrote:I'm not sure about that one JD, how could any Judge have the time to do all the homework on every aspect of every case, they have to preside over? Would time allow this?
Tony needs to address this with her.
The judge will have assistants etc to find all the info they need for any case and situation
____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd- Posts : 4151
Activity : 4400
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-07-22
The mysteries of Facebook
It was when the topic about E S started that I decided to access Facebook for the first time to try to understand more about the "friends" issue. I'm not sure if I'm much the wiser now - it really does seem to me to be aimed more towards the younger generation (I'm showing my age I know) and as such I'm having trouble with keeping up.
When I log into my entry, I'm greeted with a section called "add people you know" and there's a long list of people, some with photos, whom I don't know from Adam but are connected with someone else whom I have heard of. I can if I choose then access information about those people who for all I know may have some very strange interests which I certainly don't share.
I take it that this is not the situation we are talking about?
I
When I log into my entry, I'm greeted with a section called "add people you know" and there's a long list of people, some with photos, whom I don't know from Adam but are connected with someone else whom I have heard of. I can if I choose then access information about those people who for all I know may have some very strange interests which I certainly don't share.
I take it that this is not the situation we are talking about?
I
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
This post has been removed from the forum by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst.
____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd- Posts : 4151
Activity : 4400
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-07-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
I agree that no-one can become your friend on facebook without your express action of physically pressing the button to add them. I vet my friends carefully and reject more than I add.
Why aren't the Police interested in the activity of these people on Facebook?
Best Wishes Tony btw. Seems some of the nutters on twitter (who claim to know the McCanns) were lying about what happened yesterday.
Why aren't the Police interested in the activity of these people on Facebook?
Best Wishes Tony btw. Seems some of the nutters on twitter (who claim to know the McCanns) were lying about what happened yesterday.
littlepixie- Posts : 1346
Activity : 1392
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2009-11-29
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
And, of course, Smethurst is a director of a Fund where the parents ask for money to search for their daughter who they say has been taken by a paedophile gang who, says Kate in the book she wrote for her kids, might be ripping apart her perfect genitals.
It does seem most bizarre that a director of the Fund should have these characters as friends on his FB page and, like you say, when it's brought to his attention he sues the person who told him.
Aren't these characters also friends on Smethurst's daughter's FB page? Isn't Smethurst worried about that at all? Does he dismiss outright that these awful characters could be part of the paedophile ring the McCanns say took Madeleine?
I find it odd that Smethurst did nothing about it other than ask libel lawyers to take action against TB.
It does seem most bizarre that a director of the Fund should have these characters as friends on his FB page and, like you say, when it's brought to his attention he sues the person who told him.
Aren't these characters also friends on Smethurst's daughter's FB page? Isn't Smethurst worried about that at all? Does he dismiss outright that these awful characters could be part of the paedophile ring the McCanns say took Madeleine?
I find it odd that Smethurst did nothing about it other than ask libel lawyers to take action against TB.
happychick- Posts : 405
Activity : 503
Likes received : 40
Join date : 2011-06-14
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
jd wrote:Stella wrote:I'm not sure about that one JD, how could any Judge have the time to do all the homework on every aspect of every case, they have to preside over? Would time allow this?
Tony needs to address this with her.
The judge will have assistants etc to find all the info they need for any case and situation
Precisely, so why didn't they advise the Judge accordingly?
Guest- Guest
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Stella wrote: Precisely, so why didn't they advise the Judge accordingly?
They would have done if the judge didn't know, its their job to. I think we know why the judge played dumb on this point
____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd- Posts : 4151
Activity : 4400
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-07-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Yes, I just whizzed off and checked out Facebook FAQ's, Mr Smethurst definately would have had to accept a friend request. I would strongly contest the assertion that he had no control as it simply NOT TRUE! I think it grossly unfair that they would mention this without checking their facts, a lie must not enter the case!!
This is correct , YOU HAVE EVERY CONTROL OVER WHO BECOMES YOUR FRIEND,
a- you request someone to be you friend
b someone requests you to be their friend
c a mutual friend sends 'a friend suggestion' which comes up as a red icon in both persons notifications/ friends add list/ and again you still have to take the steps of either a or b above you then have to request them or they request you,
NO one can just be your friend , YOU have to AUTHORISE this ,
sorry if i have repeated what others have said many posts have come through while writing this
____________________
“
dragonfly- Posts : 318
Activity : 367
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2011-03-01
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
This post has been removed from the forum by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst.
____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
jd- Posts : 4151
Activity : 4400
Likes received : 45
Join date : 2011-07-22
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
I do hope your day in court was not too stressful Tony Many thanks for explaining the days events to us!
You have shown enormous courage, and I hope the final costs will be significantly low, if not waived altogether due to irregularities in the claimant's case against you.
You have shown enormous courage, and I hope the final costs will be significantly low, if not waived altogether due to irregularities in the claimant's case against you.
pennylane- Posts : 2770
Activity : 4406
Likes received : 1638
Join date : 2009-12-07
LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x1 and alleged libels x 2
'Ignorance of the Law is no defense'.
I
don't know if this is appropriate here, since face book is not the law,
but it has set rules, which are the laws by which it administers its
business.
Surely it is up to Smethurst's lawyer and the judge to
be informed of the conditions for being a friend on face book if they
are going to use or accept, reference to Facebook friends, as a
condition for apportioning blame and therefore costs, against an
individual, here, Tony Bennett.
As stated, if Smethurst is
director of a fund etc. and has accepted questionable friends on Facebook, and then
shoots the messenger (Tony Bennett) for pointing out the clash of
interests here, instead of removing the 'friends' then it is all not quite right.
Tony, bon
courage !!
As with the now exposed 'Webb' ex police officer, investigator for NI, seeking '
to 'destroy' the lawyer for Milly Dowler's parents, it would be wrong
to have to accept a breach of the law, or ignorance of it, permitting
an unjust outcome, because it is feared that a worse agreement would be
imposed if one kicks up dust.
Mark
Lewis, the Dowler's lawyer refers to the investigation against him on
the thread 'James Murdoch's lawyers confirm Tom Watson was put under
surveillance"
Post a reply
I
don't know if this is appropriate here, since face book is not the law,
but it has set rules, which are the laws by which it administers its
business.
Surely it is up to Smethurst's lawyer and the judge to
be informed of the conditions for being a friend on face book if they
are going to use or accept, reference to Facebook friends, as a
condition for apportioning blame and therefore costs, against an
individual, here, Tony Bennett.
As stated, if Smethurst is
director of a fund etc. and has accepted questionable friends on Facebook, and then
shoots the messenger (Tony Bennett) for pointing out the clash of
interests here, instead of removing the 'friends' then it is all not quite right.
Tony, bon
courage !!
As with the now exposed 'Webb' ex police officer, investigator for NI, seeking '
to 'destroy' the lawyer for Milly Dowler's parents, it would be wrong
to have to accept a breach of the law, or ignorance of it, permitting
an unjust outcome, because it is feared that a worse agreement would be
imposed if one kicks up dust.
Mark
Lewis, the Dowler's lawyer refers to the investigation against him on
the thread 'James Murdoch's lawyers confirm Tom Watson was put under
surveillance"
Post a reply
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Mercifully I know little about facebook. And less about twitter.
Carter Ruck overclaiming? And being a bit creative with their costs? You will be telling me that bears s**t in the woods next.
Carter Ruck overclaiming? And being a bit creative with their costs? You will be telling me that bears s**t in the woods next.
Xavier- Posts : 130
Activity : 130
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-09-08
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
This post has been removed by Tony Bennett at the request of Edward Smethurst.
Re: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
Wow ! PeterMac,
Put like that, I'd say your summary is very succinct.
Put like that, I'd say your summary is very succinct.
bobbin- Posts : 2053
Activity : 2240
Likes received : 145
Join date : 2011-12-05
Page 5 of 8 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8
Similar topics
» THE 17-PAGE LIST OF OF POLICE OFFICERS, PUBLIC OFFICIALS, AUTHORS, WEBSITES, BLOGGERS ETC given to the High Court by Tony Bennett in the contempt of court case of McCanns v Bennett
» McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
» A COMPENDIUM OF MCCANN-RELATED LIBEL ACTIONS
» Missing Tia Sharp
» Libel Reform Campaign Press Statement 9 November 2011
» McCanns v Bennett: 153 alleged breaches reduced to 25
» A COMPENDIUM OF MCCANN-RELATED LIBEL ACTIONS
» Missing Tia Sharp
» Libel Reform Campaign Press Statement 9 November 2011
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Legal Issues :: Carter-Ruck: McCanns v Bennett Contempt of Court
Page 5 of 8
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum