Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett

by **Tony Bennett** 31.01.13 16:13

Today Carter-Ruck have informed me of their total costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett, which they expect to claim from me if they win on Wednesday, i.e. prove me guilty of contempt of court. They are as follows:

1. Solicitors' fees of Carter-Ruck to date:

£181,245

2. Disbursements: Court fees, process servers & couriers:

£1,484

3. Fees of Jacob Dean, barrister, for all hearings to date and advice:

£25,475

4. Fees of Adrienne Page Q.C., for advice and a 2-day hearing:

£32,250

5. VAT on all the above

£48,049

GRAND TOTAL:

£288,503

So much for this sentence on pages 289-290 of 'madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann:

"Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes"

by saltnpepper 31.01.13 16:22

Thats a lot of wonga!!
Could you pay in installments...im sure many would love to help

by saltnpepper 31.01.13 16:22

Forgot to say...if it comes to that

by ShuBob 31.01.13 16:27

Offer them 50p a week.

by roy rovers 31.01.13 16:31

Who pays these costs if you can't?

by bristow 31.01.13 16:32

Tony Bennett wrote:Today Carter-Ruck have informed me of their total costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett, which they expect to claim from me if they win on Wednesday, i.e. prove me guilty of contempt of court. They are as follows:

1. Solicitors' fees of Carter-Ruck to date:

£181,245

2. Disbursements: Court fees, process servers & couriers:

£1,484

3. Fees of Jacob Dean, barrister, for all hearings to date and advice:

£25,475

4. Fees of Adrienne Page Q.C., for advice and a 2-day hearing:

£32,250

5. VAT on all the above

£48,049

GRAND TOTAL:

£288,503

So much for this sentence on pages 289-290 of 'madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann:

"Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes"

By showing you their fees today they are hoping to god that it will scare you, they're desperate for you to give up, I should imagine it is making you more determined to fight the good fight with all thy might.
Wonder what the people, especially the dear old ladies who have paid into the Madeleine fund would think of their hard earned being spent on trying to jail a gentleman who is trying to get to the bottom of the disappearance of a little girl?

by saltnpepper 31.01.13 16:33

You should reply with...is that all...my fees are double that Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett 110921

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 16:39

£25,475
4. Fees of Adrienne Page Q.C., for advice and a 2-day hearing:

Daylight robbery! The financier who agrees to that hire, and face the real possibility of having to foot that bill in the eventuality they lost the case, must either have a vendetta against TB or was so complicit in this mess that he has something to hide bigger and beyond the Mccanns and their missing child.

To spend someone's else money one needs to seek consent, hence the mccanns could not have made the decision to hire such an expensive big gun without the financier nod of head.

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 16:45

roy rovers wrote:Who pays these costs if you can't?

No one I suppose. It will just be bad-debts on CR's books.
That said, if Mccanns lost, the person who bankroll them will have to pay those costs.

On the positive side, this can be drawn to Court's attention as example of the extent Mccanns go to, to take on an old-man sans legal representation. The inequality of arms is reflected in CR's billings.

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 16:50

£288,503 - the costs of a team of lawyers to work on alleged breach of undertaking and yet the mccanns' propaganding machine comes here and bleat on about it being a black and white case. Which begs the question why do their lawyers need to spend endless hours preparing for a simple black and white case against someone not legally represented?

by tiny 31.01.13 16:52

ShuBob wrote:Offer them 50p a week.

Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett 759815

i would offer 25p they are sure trying to put the frightners on Tony,the mccanns do really have something to hide

by worriedmum 31.01.13 16:54

well said Aiyoyo

by tiny 31.01.13 16:57

All i can say this so over the top,they cant think the outcome will be in thier favour.

by ShuBob 31.01.13 16:59

If they manage to get TB jailed, will they still expect him to pay their costs? They may as well ask for the death penalty if so.

by Smokeandmirrors 31.01.13 17:03

Bless my barnacles, what an absolute rip-off!!

This says a few things to me:

1) McCanns must REALLY fear Tony's word getting out there to the great unwashed

2) Although the inequality of arms does not extend to civil proceedings, they know of Tony's financial situation, so this is just malicious accrual of fees IMO (particularly bringing in a second barrister at the eleventh hour at an extortionate cost)

3) This demonstrates their fear of going to full libel trial, so trying to flatten the opposition now so that there is no more oomph left in Tony to continue his campaign

4) If they lose, and they have to pay this, they are deliberately harming the search, i.e. using up the search fund on legal fees

5) If they have a Guarantor in case of failure, THAT person has so much to hide they are willing to pay over a £quarter million as an "insurance" downpayment.

6) Hopefully the Judge will not look kindly on the McCanns for racking up such a ridiculous fees against one man, for a breach that is really not important in the bigger scheme of life in general, and will make a sensible call. In other words, I hope he sees their malice, and has the integrity to deal with it accordingly.

7) Their determination to silence Tony as demonstrated by the sheer volume of legal work being done to achieve this, IMO, proves that what TB has written about it is completely true, or very damn well close to it. They know unless TB is silenced, their days are numbered, metaphorically speaking.

They are on thin ice now, and the ice is starting to crack.

by tiny 31.01.13 17:05

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Bless my barnacles, what an absolute rip-off!!

This says a few things to me:

1) McCanns must REALLY fear Tony's word getting out there to the great unwashed

2) Although the inequality of arms does not extend to civil proceedings, they know of Tony's financial situation, so this is just malicious accrual of fees IMO (particularly bringing in a second barrister at the eleventh hour at an extortionate cost)

3) This demonstrates their fear of going to full libel trial, so trying to flatten the opposition now so that there is no more oomph left in Tony to continue his campaign

4) If they lose, and they have to pay this, they are deliberately harming the search, i.e. using up the search fund on legal fees

5) If they have a Guarantor in case of failure, THAT person has so much to hide they are willing to pay over a £quarter million as an "insurance" downpayment.

6) Hopefully the Judge will not look kindly on the McCanns for racking up such a ridiculous fees against one man, for a breach that is really not important in the bigger scheme of life in general, and will make a sensible call. In other words, I hope he sees their malice, and has the integrity to deal with it accordingly.

7) Their determination to silence Tony as demonstrated by the sheer volume of legal work being done to achieve this, IMO, proves that what TB has written about it is completely true, or very damn well close to it. They know unless TB is silenced, their days are numbered, metaphorically speaking.

They are on thin ice now, and the ice is starting to crack.

Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett 41345390

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 17:06

ShuBob wrote:If they manage to get TB jailed, will they still expect him to pay their costs? They may as well ask for the death penalty if so.

If he is jailed, what more is there to lose if he refuses to pay up?
At most they can apply to bang him up for a longer period which they will have to submit fresh application and go through certain process again.

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 17:08

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Bless my barnacles, what an absolute rip-off!!

This says a few things to me:

1) McCanns must REALLY fear Tony's word getting out there to the great unwashed

2) Although the inequality of arms does not extend to civil proceedings, they know of Tony's financial situation, so this is just malicious accrual of fees IMO (particularly bringing in a second barrister at the eleventh hour at an extortionate cost)

3) This demonstrates their fear of going to full libel trial, so trying to flatten the opposition now so that there is no more oomph left in Tony to continue his campaign

4) If they lose, and they have to pay this, they are deliberately harming the search, i.e. using up the search fund on legal fees

5) If they have a Guarantor in case of failure, THAT person has so much to hide they are willing to pay over a £quarter million as an "insurance" downpayment.

6) Hopefully the Judge will not look kindly on the McCanns for racking up such a ridiculous fees against one man, for a breach that is really not important in the bigger scheme of life in general, and will make a sensible call. In other words, I hope he sees their malice, and has the integrity to deal with it accordingly.

7) Their determination to silence Tony as demonstrated by the sheer volume of legal work being done to achieve this, IMO, proves that what TB has written about it is completely true, or very damn well close to it. They know unless TB is silenced, their days are numbered, metaphorically speaking.

They are on thin ice now, and the ice is starting to crack.

Voted "Post of the Day".

by tasprin 31.01.13 17:11

Wow! That is shocking.

What has it cost to persue Amaral, Guerra e Paz, TV1 and Valentim de Carvalho through the courts for the past four years (and several hearings, all the way to the Supreme Court)?

Libel lawyers are definitely only for the super rich.

Who pays for the McCanns if they lose? Will the money come out of the fund? Will the Sales Shark, owner Brian Kennedy, foot the bill? Or will Carter Ruck swallow the fees themselves if they're unsuccessful, because we've been told that when they work for the McCanns, they work for free?

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 17:12

[quote="tiny"]

ShuBob wrote:Offer them 50p a week.[/quote

i would offer 25p they are sure trying to put the frightners on Tony,the mccanns do really have something to hide

I would offer them 1p per week spread over 20 life times if it comes to that.

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 17:14

tasprin wrote:Wow! That is shocking.

What has it cost to persue Amaral, Guerra e Paz, TV1 and Valentim de Carvalho through the courts for the past four years (and several hearings, all the way to the Supreme Court)?

Probably similar amount if not higher.....all these in the name of *search* for madeleine.
What a sinful waste of money when it could have been spent properly on the search (if there is a search)!

by bobbin 31.01.13 17:15

aiyoyo wrote:
roy rovers wrote:Who pays these costs if you can't?

No one I suppose. It will just be bad-debts on CR's books.
That said, if Mccanns lost, the person who bankroll them will have to pay those costs.

On the positive side, this can be drawn to Court's attention as example of the extent Mccanns go to, to take on an old-man sans legal representation. The inequality of arms is reflected in CR's billings.

So, Kate said this: on pages 289-290 of 'madeleine', by Dr Kate McCann:

"Adam Tudor and his colleague Isabel Hudson continue to do a vast amount of work for us, without payment, most of it quietly, behind the scenes"

This raises serious questions, because whichever way you look at it, someone must be telling porky pies.

Have Carter Ruck (or some of their employees) deceived Kate McCann into believing that they were doing a vast amount of work for the McCanns, without payment.

Is it only Adam Tudor and Isabel Hudson who have been working without payment. If so, then the bill informed to Tony Bennett must be reduced by their combined amount.

Is CR guilty of including fees against Tony Bennett, which are not to be counted.

Is CR lying to Kate when they are claimed, by Kate, to be working without payment, or is Kate guilty of lying to the public, including the little old ladies and young children who donated their precious little pennies to the ~~scam~~ fund.

Next question, if CR are prepared to do free work for a pair of self-confessed child-neglecting doctors, why are they not prepared to do free work for an old age pensioner who believes, along with the rest of the sentient public, that parents owe a duty of responsibility towards looking after the welfare of their defenseless little children.
Do CR only offer free work to irresponsible people. Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett 173510

Carter-Rucks's costs: £288,503 for fighting McCanns v Bennett 173510

by ShuBob 31.01.13 17:17

aiyoyo wrote:
tasprin wrote:Wow! That is shocking.

What has it cost to persue Amaral, Guerra e Paz, TV1 and Valentim de Carvalho through the courts for the past four years (and several hearings, all the way to the Supreme Court)?

Probably similar amount if not higher.....all these in the name of *search* for madeleine.
What a sinful waste of money when it could have been spent properly on the search (if there is a search)!

While at the same time they reject the services of a dedicated missing persons' website. Makes sense, doesn't it!

by aiyoyo 31.01.13 17:23

CR works only for those who can pay through their noses! Those types are usually dodgy who need reputation management, hence willing to fork out.
CR is happy to defense their porkie pies so long as the lard goes into their pocket.

No difference from assassins for hire if price is right.