The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Page 4 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by stumo on 27.12.13 21:26

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Babalou wrote:Smoke and Mirrors - YUK, that's a horrible thought - them gleefully opening envelopes stuffed with cash and cheques! Hopefully there won't be too much more of that going on, ditto celebrities bunging them huge amounts of loot.

It his horrid. Even more horrid is that they didn't think to downsize their house (to a 3 bed semi for example) in order that they used some of their own cash for the search. That is one of the most disgusting things. They took money off poorer people, yet continued to live in a house far bigger than their needs.

  What search?  I think, IMHO, hiring the so called experts was a money laundering scheme, they got a percentage to use their name and to put out some false sightings.... allegedly

stumo

Posts : 152
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-03-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Daisy on 27.12.13 21:32

@stumo wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Babalou wrote:Smoke and Mirrors - YUK, that's a horrible thought - them gleefully opening envelopes stuffed with cash and cheques! Hopefully there won't be too much more of that going on, ditto celebrities bunging them huge amounts of loot.

It his horrid. Even more horrid is that they didn't think to downsize their house (to a 3 bed semi for example) in order that they used some of their own cash for the search. That is one of the most disgusting things. They took money off poorer people, yet continued to live in a house far bigger than their needs.

  What search?  I think, IMHO, hiring the so called experts was a money laundering scheme, they got a percentage to use their name and to put out some false sightings.... allegedly
  I can't argue with any of that but I'm sure some will.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 27.12.13 21:36

We still looking at the enormous difference between what TM said they paid Metodo3 and what M3 says, they actually got ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 27.12.13 21:39

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Babalou wrote:Smoke and Mirrors - YUK, that's a horrible thought - them gleefully opening envelopes stuffed with cash and cheques! Hopefully there won't be too much more of that going on, ditto celebrities bunging them huge amounts of loot.

It his horrid. Even more horrid is that they didn't think to downsize their house (to a 3 bed semi for example) in order that they used some of their own cash for the search. That is one of the most disgusting things. They took money off poorer people, yet continued to live in a house far bigger than their needs.
I have often thought the same thing - downsizing would be the obvious thing to do if the search meant that much to you. Also, maybe Kate could return to her job, even if it was only part-time (or am I being petty now?)

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 27.12.13 22:00

Babalou wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Babalou wrote:Smoke and Mirrors - YUK, that's a horrible thought - them gleefully opening envelopes stuffed with cash and cheques! Hopefully there won't be too much more of that going on, ditto celebrities bunging them huge amounts of loot.

It his horrid. Even more horrid is that they didn't think to downsize their house (to a 3 bed semi for example) in order that they used some of their own cash for the search. That is one of the most disgusting things. They took money off poorer people, yet continued to live in a house far bigger than their needs.
I have often thought the same thing - downsizing would be the obvious thing to do if the search meant that much to you. Also, maybe Kate could return to her job, even if it was only part-time (or am I being petty now?)

Well now the kids are at school, she could do locum work for about £6-700 per day before tax. That would surely go quite a long way. But all along, it was about what everyone else should be doing for them

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ultimaThule on 27.12.13 22:06

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:< snip >
We know from published accounts what went into the fund, but what we do not know, obviously, is what personally named cheques may have been sent to Kate and Gerry, or cash in envelopes (so distastefully suggested in early TV reporting). It is possible that a great deal of funds were sent direct to Rothley and never saw the fund balance sheets.
Or the contents of all of those buckets at football matches, collecting boxes at Glenfield Hopsital, the Ocean Club, and elsewhere, and all of those fares and other tariffs which were waived in lieu of donations, together with those monies which certain grinning members of Clan McCann claimed were pressed upon them by wellwishers intent on contributing to the non-charitable limited company 'fund' which was set up, among other purposes,
'To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family'
at a time when K&G's expenses, and those of their various friends and family members, in respect of flights, accomodation, food, drink, and childcare, not to mention the services of assorted 'trauma counsellors', were being met courtesy of Mark Warner Holidays.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ultimaThule on 27.12.13 22:14

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:< snip >
Well now the kids are at school, she could do locum work for about £6-700 per day before tax. That would surely go quite a long way. But all along, it was about what everyone else should be doing for them

As was remarked on another recent thread, although her name appears on the GMC's register, Dr Kate Marie Healy is currently not licensed to practise medicine.

It is a matter of conjecture as to what renumeration, if any, or other stipend and reimbursement of expenses, Kate McCann receives in respect of her duties as an 'ambassador' for the charity Missing People.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Cristobell on 27.12.13 22:26

@ultimaThule wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:< snip >
We know from published accounts what went into the fund, but what we do not know, obviously, is what personally named cheques may have been sent to Kate and Gerry, or cash in envelopes (so distastefully suggested in early TV reporting). It is possible that a great deal of funds were sent direct to Rothley and never saw the fund balance sheets.
Or the contents of all of those buckets at football matches, collecting boxes at Glenfield Hopsital, the Ocean Club, and elsewhere, and all of those fares and other tariffs which were waived in lieu of donations, together with those monies which certain grinning members of Clan McCann claimed were pressed upon them by wellwishers intent on contributing to the non-charitable limited company 'fund' which was set up, among other purposes,
'To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family'
at a time when K&G's expenses, and those of their various friends and family members, in respect of flights, accomodation, food, drink, and childcare, not to mention the services of assorted 'trauma counsellors', were being met courtesy of Mark Warner Holidays.



I can't get over the number of people who flew out to PDL to support them, then joined them in what appeared to be an extended vacation. I would love to hear more from the tapas cook, and indeed other Warners staff, as to what the huge McCann entourage were up to. other than enjoying the pool and tennis facilities.

Tapas cook speaks out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOidpDzY-Js



Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ultimaThule on 27.12.13 23:05

Châtelaine wrote:@  smokeandmirrors
That reminds me of their first accounts, which were still "quite" detailed. I would think that Income would be specified as "bank" , "cash", etc. But I cannot remember having seen that. Perhaps when Enid is around, she can enlighten me/us. She must know these accounts by heart ...  smilie
In its first year of trading to 31/3/2008, the limited company's accounts show a gross sum of £1,846,178 as Income of which £1,390,360 is shown as 'donation income via bank', £391,740 is shown as 'donation income via website' and the balance of £64,078 is shown as income derived from 'sales of t-shirts and wristbands'. 

Subsequent annual accounts of the limited company, which according KM would be maintained in accordance with best practice and transparency 'no matter what the cost', do not provide any breakdown of the gross sum shown as Income received.

On a point of information, the limited company's accounts to 31 December 2012 were signed off by the auditors on 21st of that month but, nevertheless, incurred a penalty of £150 for being filed after their due date and were not published until February 2013.

It remains to be seen whether the limited company's current year's accounts are filed by the end of December;  as the 'donate online' button has been out of action since mid-November, and banks are refusing to process transfers made at their counters, it's reasonable to suppose that the task of adding up the sums is a tad less onerous than it may have been in past years and its to be hoped the relevant figures will be available to view in the very near future.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by whatliesbehindthesofa on 27.12.13 23:11

@Cristobell wrote:
I can't get over the number of people who flew out to PDL to support  them, then joined them in what appeared to be an extended vacation.  I would love to hear more from the tapas cook, and indeed other Warners staff, as to what the huge McCann entourage were up to. other than enjoying the pool and tennis facilities.  

Tapas cook speaks out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOidpDzY-Js

Another one of the Tapas bar staff who says that the alarm was raised at 9:30pm not 10pm.

whatliesbehindthesofa

Posts : 1320
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Daisy on 27.12.13 23:31

@ultimaThule wrote:
@Smokeandmirrors wrote:< snip >
We know from published accounts what went into the fund, but what we do not know, obviously, is what personally named cheques may have been sent to Kate and Gerry, or cash in envelopes (so distastefully suggested in early TV reporting). It is possible that a great deal of funds were sent direct to Rothley and never saw the fund balance sheets.
Or the contents of all of those buckets at football matches, collecting boxes at Glenfield Hopsital, the Ocean Club, and elsewhere, and all of those fares and other tariffs which were waived in lieu of donations, together with those monies which certain grinning members of Clan McCann claimed were pressed upon them by wellwishers intent on contributing to the non-charitable limited company 'fund' which was set up, among other purposes,
'To provide support, including financial assistance, to Madeleine's family'
at a time when K&G's expenses, and those of their various friends and family members, in respect of flights, accomodation, food, drink, and childcare, not to mention the services of assorted 'trauma counsellors', were being met courtesy of Mark Warner Holidays.
 So much money unaccounted for.

They milked the Irish angle for all it was worth. I'm sure GM gave special thanks to his Celtic cousins for their generosity though, yes I remember that bit.

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Hobs on 28.12.13 1:39

Since kate is no longer licenced to practice medicine , i have to wonder why?

Was it voluntary or was it imposed on her?

if it was imposed on her , who imposed it ?
gerry, the local surgery or the GMC.

Why would she stop practicing given it was a job she worked so hard for and given they were skint prior to the vacation, her income was needed if not essential.

Did the surgery ask her to leave or was she pushed when  the 'neglect' admission came out.
They wouldn't employ a  self confessed neglector who was required by law to contact social services if she saw an obviously neglected child when she herself admitted neglect, there is also the problem of how many people would want to be seen by jer given  her admissions.
was it perhaps a case of resign or we will sack you to preserve the surgery reputation.

Was it perhaps the GMC who imposed a ban given again the admitted neglect and her  self announced dreams of  murder suicide.

No one is going to let her practice if she is mentally unstable.

I don't know if they could demand to see her medical history and thus make a decision on that based on what is revealed.

As it stands she is unemployable especially any job involving contact with childrem. gerry isn't that much better off, he has limited contact with patients and even then i suspect he will be monitored given he too admitted neglect.

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

Hobs

Posts : 715
Reputation : 288
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 52
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ultimaThule on 28.12.13 3:29

See page 2 onwards of  tigger's thread http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t8686-how-should-it-have-gone for pertinent information re K&G's respective careers, Hobs.

Locum GPs are temporary workers - usually employed to cover out of hours services or to fill in when practice partners/members are on maternity leave/sabbaticals/full time training or other such leave of absence.  Many work for agenices but some, such as Dr Kate in May 2007, are employed by established surgeries on short-term contracts.

There is no requirement for such locums to complete the GP vocational training which used to take 3 years but is now considerably longer - to complete this course a wannabe GP mother of three under 3 year olds would require a small army to keep the homefires burning while she embarked on half a dozen or more 6 month stints as a senior house doctor on call 24/7 which necessitates living in hospital accomodation during shifts.

The GMC is self-regulating and, as evidenced by the numbers of 'questionable' doctors it keeps on its register, is effectively a law unto itself.  Given that Dr Kate Marie Healy's name continued to appear on the Register as licensed to practice until some time in the last few months, it's unlikely she was subjected to censure or disciplinary procedures of any kind in the aftermath of May 2007 and it should be noted that the career of her spouse, Dr Gerald Patrick McCann, continued and continues unabated.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by ultimaThule on 28.12.13 3:51

Babalou wrote:Thank you for the welcome, Cristobell winkwink 
You are probably right that they won't appeal, but with their out-of-control egos you never know! Absolutely staggering that as plaintiffs they tried to settle out-of-court anyway - says it all really. They are not interested in justice; they just want a quick buck and for no-one to point the finger at them. It will be interesting to see what happens if the money dries up - that will change the game completely (though I do hope that they don't have loads squirrelled away in offshore accounts as has been suggested.)
If the Judge in the ongoing trial in Lisbon finds against them, it's inevitable the McCanns will announce their intention to appeal but whether they follow through, or whether they find themselves in any position to follow through, remains to be seen.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Miraflores on 28.12.13 11:04

Given that Dr Kate Marie Healy's name continued to appear on the Register as licensed to practice until some time in the last few months, it's unlikely she was subjected to censure or disciplinary procedures of any kind in the aftermath of May 2007

She renewed her Registration back in August (at a fee) and then come the middle of November, her status changed and she was no longer licenced to practice. A relatively new continual accreditation process has come into being, so I wonder if, since she hadn't practiced medicine for nearly 6 1/2 years, whether no one could sign off her paperwork?

The fact that she is still on the register says that she is 'in good standing' with the GMC.

Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by sallypelt on 28.12.13 11:48

@Miraflores wrote:
Given that Dr Kate Marie Healy's name continued to appear on the Register as licensed to practice until some time in the last few months, it's unlikely she was subjected to censure or disciplinary procedures of any kind in the aftermath of May 2007

She renewed her Registration back in August (at a fee) and then come the middle of November, her status changed and she was no longer licenced to practice. A relatively new continual accreditation process has come into being, so I wonder if, since she hadn't practiced medicine for nearly 6 1/2 years, whether no one could sign off her paperwork?

The fact that she is still on the register says that she is 'in good standing' with the GMC.

I have also been asking myself, why did David and Fiona Payne set up their own company in November of this year.They are the only two directors of this company, and neither of the Payne's have been directors in the past.  There could be a simple explanation, but the timing is suspect.

sallypelt

Posts : 3305
Reputation : 524
Join date : 2012-11-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by wjk on 28.12.13 12:28

@sallypelt wrote:
@Miraflores wrote:
Given that Dr Kate Marie Healy's name continued to appear on the Register as licensed to practice until some time in the last few months, it's unlikely she was subjected to censure or disciplinary procedures of any kind in the aftermath of May 2007

She renewed her Registration back in August (at a fee) and then come the middle of November, her status changed and she was no longer licenced to practice. A relatively new continual accreditation process has come into being, so I wonder if, since she hadn't practiced medicine for nearly 6 1/2 years, whether no one could sign off her paperwork?

The fact that she is still on the register says that she is 'in good standing' with the GMC.

I have also been asking myself, why did David and Fiona Payne set up their own company in November of this year.They are the only two directors of this company, and neither of the Payne's have been directors in the past.  There could be a simple explanation, but the timing is suspect.
Well, I didn't know that!

wjk

Posts : 126
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-11-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Guest on 28.12.13 12:35

There's mention of the company here. http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7278p60-official-find-madeleine-missing-shop-and-contacts

I can't see any particular significance of such a company being set up.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by wjk on 28.12.13 12:51

Thanks, NFWTD x

wjk

Posts : 126
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2012-11-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by diatribe on 28.12.13 15:06

Surely there can't be anyone left on this planet continuing to contribute to the McCann's fraudulent fund, I'd have thought Bernie Madoff would be better situated to generate confidence operating a Ponzi scheme from his Butner gaol cell.

I can't personally understand how any sane minded person could possibly have been duped into donating a brass cent to their begging bowl in the first instance, after all, it was clearly stated from the incept by one of their representatives that any money donated would be used for mainly legal expenses.

One simply has to ask oneself, what innocent victim of a crime would be expecting to incur legal expenses, particularly at a time when no meeja or police suspicion had been pointed in their direction. If any of you readers had just incurred a genuine burglary, robbery, an abduction of a family member etc. would your main pre-occupation be in setting up a fund to pay for lawyers, PR Personnel et al in the event that you may conceivably become the main suspect.

There's probably a school of thought which would subscribe to the fact that if anyone is gullible enough to send these obvious scam artists money, then they can hardly be blamed for taking it. Even the ineffectuals of nigerian lottery scams have the saving grace of at least 'believing' they might get something in return for their money, whereas the McCann's benefactors didn't even have that, so they haven't got the excuse of greed to blame for their gullibility. sad

As for the McCann's libel claim for distress related damages,, it would appear that Goncalo Amaral's book has caused them more consternation than the disappearance of their daughter. The McCanns must be the largest  sized elephants that have ever stepped foot in a ballroom, never mind a living room.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by aquila on 28.12.13 15:42

It's my understanding that the libel trial in Lisbon resumes on 7th January 2014 and no ruling will be given on that day. Going by the general pace of things in the Portuguese courts it may well not turn out to be the final day of the trial.

I'm happy to wait for the outcome of this trial. No amount of TM positive press releases to the UK media will have any bearing on the ruling imo.

Should the McCanns lose they may well appeal but then again TM may have to weigh up the costs of doing so and it would really make everyone wonder why the relentless fight for damages when Scotland Yard and the PJ are on the case and the case is open, being paid for by Portuguese and UK taxpayers and the Mc's are funded by a limited company and allegedly private benefactors.

Just my opinion.

aquila

Posts : 7953
Reputation : 1174
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Cristobell on 28.12.13 18:18

@Hobs wrote:Since kate is no longer licenced to practice medicine , i have to wonder why?

Was it voluntary or was it imposed on her?

if it was imposed on her , who imposed it ?
gerry, the local surgery or the GMC.

Why would she stop practicing given it was a job she worked so hard for and given they were skint prior to the vacation, her income was needed if not essential.

Did the surgery ask her to leave or was she pushed when  the 'neglect' admission came out.
They wouldn't employ a  self confessed neglector who was required by law to contact social services if she saw an obviously neglected child when she herself admitted neglect, there is also the problem of how many people would want to be seen by jer given  her admissions.
was it perhaps a case of resign or we will sack you to preserve the surgery reputation.

Was it perhaps the GMC who imposed a ban given again the admitted neglect and her  self announced dreams of  murder suicide.

No one is going to let her practice if she is mentally unstable.

I don't know if they could demand to see her medical history and thus make a decision on that based on what is revealed.

As it stands she is unemployable especially any job involving contact with childrem. gerry isn't that much better off, he has limited contact with patients and even then i suspect he will be monitored given he too admitted neglect.




This is something I have wondered about too Hobs. In fact, I have even considered that it may have been part of the Pact. That is, Kate may have promised never to practice medicine again. From the beginning she made no bones about not returning to work, which as you say is a strange decision for someone who has spent so many years achieving her goal. I have long suspected that she was under a huge amount of pressure during that holiday, and most likely it was going on long before. Toddlers are unbelievably hard work, parents rarely get a break and the short clip of the family on the airport bus showed the macho Gerry distancing himself from his wife and kids, and complaining he was not there for a break. Kate has never expressed any desire to return to her career, one suspects that for her it was not a vocation.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Cristobell on 28.12.13 18:19

@diatribe wrote:Surely there can't be anyone left on this planet continuing to contribute to the McCann's fraudulent fund, I'd have thought Bernie Madoff would be better situated to generate confidence operating a Ponzi scheme from his Butner gaol cell.

I can't personally understand how any sane minded person could possibly have been duped into donating a brass cent to their begging bowl in the first instance, after all, it was clearly stated from the incept by one of their representatives that any money donated would be used for mainly legal expenses.

One simply has to ask oneself, what innocent victim of a crime would be expecting to incur legal expenses, particularly at a time when no meeja or police suspicion had been pointed in their direction. If any of you readers had just incurred a genuine burglary, robbery, an abduction of a family member etc. would your main pre-occupation be in setting up a fund to pay for lawyers, PR Personnel et al in the event that you may conceivably become the main suspect.

There's probably a school of thought which would subscribe to the fact that if anyone is gullible enough to send these obvious scam artists money, then they can hardly be blamed for taking it. Even the ineffectuals of nigerian lottery scams have the saving grace of at least 'believing' they might get something in return for their money, whereas the McCann's benefactors didn't even have that, so they haven't got the excuse of greed to blame for their gullibility. sad

As for the McCann's libel claim for distress related damages,, it would appear that Goncalo Amaral's book has caused them more consternation than the disappearance of their daughter. The McCanns must be the largest  sized elephants that have ever stepped foot in a ballroom, never mind a living room.






Well said  smilie 

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by Casey5 on 28.12.13 18:49

If the McCanns lose the libel trial, they would be liable to pay the costs etc of the other parties including -maybe- damages.
If they appealed, would they still have to pay the costs etc. up front or would they have to pay nothing until the appeal was heard - in case they won?
I was just thinking, if they lost they may decide to appeal in order to avoid paying any money out straight away.
And then Goncalo Amaral would be where he is now, broke and unable to release his finances.
Can anyone throw any light on this situation please?

Casey5

Posts : 321
Reputation : 18
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: LIBEL TRIAL DISCUSSION HERE

Post by diatribe on 28.12.13 19:32

@Casey5 wrote:If the McCanns lose the libel trial, they would be liable to pay the costs etc of the other parties including -maybe- damages.
If they appealed, would they still have to pay the costs etc. up front or would they have to pay nothing until the appeal was heard - in case they won?

 
As previously stated on this or another thread, I am not familiar with libel law. However,if it follows a similar pattern to criminal or civil law, the losing party would not be liable to anti up any money pending the result of an appeal, this would apply to the opposing party's costs as well as any remuneration awarded.

They would however be obligated to pay their own appeal legal costs up front, unless of course their portugese legal team are working on a pro bono or no win, no fee basis, which in their case, I would consider highly unlikely.

My opinion on this may well be further diminished by the fact that this matter is being conducted under portugese law whose rules of engagement may well vary with those in the british justice system.

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 8 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum