Re: MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12

by aiyoyo 24.10.12 12:54

That is good news that the libel will be activated.
Would imagine it's definitely not to the mccanns liking.

Technically speaking I would think that is correct procedure, to hear the committal case filed by the plaintiffs first, as without that there would be no origins for the libel to be tested.
So the origin and hence reason for the case before court in the first place had to be tackled first then the activation of the libel to determine whether the filing by mccanns was legally valid.

by garfy 24.10.12 13:08

is this then what the best out come would be ..........

7. If I do persuade the Court to 'lift the stay', the McCanns will have to submit Particulars of Claim, setting out in precise terms what published words of mine they say are defamatory of them. I will then be able to find a detailed Response in which I will be able to set out why all of my publications on the case are simply 'honest comment' based on avalable facts (cadaver dogs, contradications etc.) and a reasonable interpretation of those facts.

if not ...hope its in your favour with what has happened today tony

by Guest 24.10.12 13:12

So they will decide at the committal hearing whether Tony breached his undertaking. But at the end of this they will decide if his reasons are valid that he had no choice but to sign or be faced with huge costs or a trial? What if it is Yes to both? Have I still got this wrong?

by Springers are FAB 24.10.12 13:14

candyfloss wrote:So they will decide at the committal hearing whether Tony breached his undertaking. But at the end of this they will decide if his reasons are valid that he had no choice but to sign or be faced with huge costs or a trial? What if it is Yes to both? Have I still got this wrong?

That's exactly how I'v understood it too Candyfloss

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.12 13:20

garfy wrote:is this then what the best out come would be....

7. If I do persuade the Court to 'lift the stay', the McCanns will have to submit Particulars of Claim, setting out in precise terms what published words of mine they say are defamatory of them. I will then be able to find a detailed Response in which I will be able to set out why all of my publications on the case are simply 'honest comment' based on avalable facts (cadaver dogs, contradications etc.) and a reasonable interpretation of those facts.

if not...hope it's in your favour with what has happened today Tony

The judge recited the undertakings I gave:

“The Defendant undertakes not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or of disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done.”

The judge then repeated what I had said in my application and letter to the Court of 25 September 2012, namely:

“that there is credible evidence that (1) Madeleine McCann died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment, (2) the McCanns have covered this up, and (3) have on occasions lied about matters connected to Madeline’s reported disappearance”.

I have never of course accepted that I should not be free at least to discuss the facts of the case, and here even Dr Gerald McCann on oath at the Leveson Inquiry agreed with me. If 'the stay [on the original libel claim] is lifted', the McCanns must then put on record what they say is defamatory and I will be able to defend myself using the new 'honest comment' defence in Spiller v Joseph [2010]. I believe that would be not only the best way forward but the only way forward now. The McCanns will be able to explain their case agaisnt me in a court of law. I will be able to defend my publications in a court of law. Both the court and the public can then make a judgment about who is right and who is wrong.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.12 13:23

david_uk wrote:Lost me at hello!!
Is there going to be a libel case or not?!

Good question, to which the answer is 'Maybe'. See my recent posts on this thread.

by garfy 24.10.12 13:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
garfy wrote:is this then what the best out come would be....

7. If I do persuade the Court to 'lift the stay', the McCanns will have to submit Particulars of Claim, setting out in precise terms what published words of mine they say are defamatory of them. I will then be able to find a detailed Response in which I will be able to set out why all of my publications on the case are simply 'honest comment' based on avalable facts (cadaver dogs, contradications etc.) and a reasonable interpretation of those facts.

if not...hope it's in your favour with what has happened today Tony
The judge recited the undertakings I gave:

“The Defendant undertakes not to repeat allegations that the Claimants are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann; and/or of disposing of her body; and/or of lying about what had happened and/or of seeking to cover up what they had done.”

The judge then repeated what I had said in my application and letter to the Court of 25 September 2012, namely:

“that there is credible evidence that (1) Madeleine McCann died in the McCanns’ holiday apartment, (2) the McCanns have covered this up, and (3) have on occasions lied about matters connected to Madeline’s reported disappearance”.

I have never of course accepted that I should not be free at least to discuss the facts of the case, and here even Dr Gerald McCann on oath at the Leveson Inquiry agreed with me. If 'the stay [on the original libel claim] is lifted', the McCanns must then put on record what they say is defamatory and I will be able to defend myself using the new 'honest comment' defence in Spiller v Joseph [2010]. I believe that would be not only the best way forward but the only way forward now. The McCanns will be able to explain their case agaisnt me in a court of law. I will be able to defend my publications in a court of law. Both the court and the public can then make a judgment about who is right and who is wrong.

ah right..thank you tony

by bobbin 24.10.12 13:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
david_uk wrote:Lost me at hello!!
Is there going to be a libel case or not?!
Good question, to which the answer is 'Maybe'. See my recent posts on this thread.

Tony, can the court find you guilty of breaking the terms, give you a prison sentence, seize assets, etc. and before you get the chance to apply to have the 'forceful' terms of the signing of the contract considered, say, NO, you may not apply for that. You have been found guilty, go to jail.
Do you have a guarantee that you will have your chance if or after being declared guilty, or is it at the judge's discretion.

by Woofer 24.10.12 13:44

Tony - I do worry that your case is discussed in detail in the public domain giving an indication of how you intend to approach the case etc. ... I just hope you are keeping some of your strategies private ... or doesn`t it make any difference? They`ve hardly given you fair warning of their moves in the past. If you broadcast your moves in advance it gives them plenty of time to counter them.

by **HiDeHo** 24.10.12 13:46

I want to add an update to the video but not sure what I should put! MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12 - Page 1 110921

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12 - Page 1 110921

McCANNS v BENNETT - Oct 24th 2012 - Good Luck Tony!

by david_uk 24.10.12 13:52

Woofer wrote:Tony - I do worry that your case is discussed in detail in the public domain giving an indication of how you intend to approach the case etc. ... I just hope you are keeping some of your strategies private ... or doesn`t it make any difference? They`ve hardly given you fair warning of their moves in the past. If you broadcast your moves in advance it gives them plenty of time to counter them.

I have previously said the same, I was shot down by other forums members for some reason. I trust Tony knows what he is doing and at the end of the day it is his choice.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.12 15:22

david_uk wrote:
Woofer wrote:Tony - I do worry that your case is discussed in detail in the public domain giving an indication of how you intend to approach the case etc. ... I just hope you are keeping some of your strategies private ... or doesn`t it make any difference? They`ve hardly given you fair warning of their moves in the past. If you broadcast your moves in advance it gives them plenty of time to counter them.
I have previously said the same, I was shot down by other forums members for some reason. I trust Tony knows what he is doing and at the end of the day it is his choice.

Thank you both for your comments.

It is almost impossible to keep strategies and legal arguments secret; the Court requires you to set out your case and your evidence - and last-minute 'surprises' are not only frowned on but may be ruled out of court.

But believe me, I don't disclose every shot in my locker in these forums.

by Guest 24.10.12 15:43

Well it's in the papers, albeit a local one ..... for now.........

McCann's case against lawyer to be heard soon

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

The parents of Madeleine McCann have won their latest court spat with a retired lawyer who they say has mounted a libel and harassment campaign against them.

Gerry and Kate McCann, of Rothley, are asking the High Court to jail 65-year-old Tony Bennett who they say has persisted in spreading false allegations against them, both on-line and in print.

Kate and Gerry McCann, the parents of missing Madeleine McCann

Mr Bennett, of Harlow, Essex, in November 2009 promised to stop making wounding allegations that the couple were guilty, or suspected of, causing their daughter's death, disposing of her body and trying to cover up what they had done.

But Mr and Mrs McCann's lawyers claim he has since breached that formal undertaking more than 150 times and are seeking his imprisonment, or other punishment, for alleged contempt of court.

At the High Court today, Mr Justice Tugendhat underlined the vital importance of court orders and undertakings being obeyed and directed that the couple's case against Mr Bennett be heard "as soon as practicable".

Madeleine went missing in May 2007 from an apartment complex in Praia da Luz, Portugal, where her parents had been holidaying with friends.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/McCann-s-case-lawyer-heard-soon/story-17168119-detail/story.html

by Guest 24.10.12 15:44

The parents of Madeleine McCann have won their latest court spat with a retired lawyer who they say has mounted a libel and harassment campaign against them.

Saying they have won??

by Springers are FAB 24.10.12 15:52

candyfloss wrote:The parents of Madeleine McCann have won their latest court spat with a retired lawyer who they say has mounted a libel and harassment campaign against them.

Saying they have won??

I think it means they have won 'this round'...which I suppose technically they have in that the Judge has ruled that the commital application for contempt will go ahead as soon as possible and not be delayed by Tony's appeal to varying the undertakings.

by chrissie 24.10.12 15:56

Martin Brunt has tweeted:

martinbrunt
‏@skymartinbrunt

#McCann In
High Court Madeleine's parents claim lawyer Tony Bennett has breached
agreement to stop "death cover-up" allegations.

by david_uk 24.10.12 16:26

This is all bloody daft!!. I don't know of a single person who knows about the details of the McCann case files, beyond what they read in the papers, let alone who Tony Bennett is (no offense Tony).

by Guest 24.10.12 16:31

david_uk wrote:This is all bloody daft!!. I don't know of a single person who knows about the details of the McCann case files, beyond what they read in the papers, let alone who Tony Bennett is (no offense Tony).

Maybe they'll start looking for more information on the internet and stumble across this forum.

newbies

by **PeterMac** 24.10.12 16:36

Good of the paper to print the allegations though, just so that everyone can consider them.

by jamaljr 24.10.12 16:44

And good of Martin Brunt to tweet this info smilie

by aiyoyo 24.10.12 16:48

Not surprised that now their case threatens to turn out to be a full blown libel where they have to be specified about their claims, that they revert to using media control strategy to spin the truth.

by jamaljr 24.10.12 17:48

True but it is a very high risk game they have started playing smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 24.10.12 18:05

jamaljr wrote:True but it is a very high risk game they have started playing...

Not only 'high risk', but also 'high cost'.

The case against me so far has cost the McCanns over £150,000.

Add on the costs of bringing a libel claim against Goncalo Amaral, then getting an injunction against him, then winning an appeal against that injunction, then losing in the Court of Appeal and having to pay Amaral's costs, then losing in the Supreme Court and having to pay Amaral's costs again, plus a 4-day libel trial against him in January, say another £300,000 minimum.

Not far short of £500,000, may be much more.

Now who is paying for all this?

Not the McCanns, who must bring up two children and pay a mortgage on just Dr Gerald McCann's salary and Child Benefit.

Not 'Madeleine's Fund', because the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell and Carter-Ruck have all gone on the record to say that no money from 'Madeleine's Fund' is being used to pay libel lawyers.

So who?

A mystery benefactor, perhaps, who is so committed to suppressing dissent re Madeleine that he's got the odd half million quid to spare?

Or could all these libel actions be being funded by some other more mysterious source?

I hope we'll find out, because according to the McCanns, they have always wanted to be 'as transparent as possible' about their search for Madeleine

by Smokeandmirrors 24.10.12 18:50

Maybe someone, some nice benefactor, thinks £half m is small fry compared to a possible alternative outcome, nudge nudge wink wink!

by Guest 24.10.12 18:51

Tony Bennett wrote: Now who is paying for all this?

Not the McCanns, who must bring up two children and pay a mortgage on just Dr Gerald McCann's salary and Child Benefit.

Not 'Madeleine's Fund', because the McCanns, Clarence Mitchell and Carter-Ruck have all gone on the record to say that no money from 'Madeleine's Fund' is being used to pay libel lawyers.

So who?

I doubt it's the twins' communion money - but no doubt we'll know more in the new year when those accounts are filed once more. If there's anything that needs doing please let us know.

MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT'S JUDGMENT IN MCCANNS v BENNETT issued 10.10 on 24.10.12