The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.04.12 12:05

I have received a letter from Carter-Ruck, dated 19 April 2012, which inter alia informs me that,

QUOTE

"...our recorded time costs in relation to the application to commit you for contempt of court are well in excess of £120,000 including Counsel's fees, other disbursements and VAT (where appropriate)".

UNQUOTE

I cannot say any more about the contents of this letter for legal reasons.

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14728
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Newintown on 25.04.12 12:16

@Tony Bennett wrote:I have received a letter from Carter-Ruck, dated 19 April 2012, which inter alia informs me that,

QUOTE

"...our recorded time costs in relation to the application to commit you for contempt of court are well in excess of £120,000 including Counsel's fees, other disbursements and VAT (where appropriate)".

UNQUOTE

I cannot say any more about the contents of this letter for legal reasons.

Is it usual for the other party's legal team to write to the other person to advise them of their costs? I've just been through a legal battle and I never heard once from the other party's solicitors.

Are they trying to scare you off to settle out of Court, are the McCanns to give evidence in the Court or are CR representing them. If you win the case, the McCanns would have to pay all the costs anyway.
avatar
Newintown

Posts : 1597
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-07-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by PeterMac on 25.04.12 12:26

This is blackmail.
It is a flagrant attempt to force you to concede.
The law Society should look at this.
It does however, re-inforce your point about the inequality which exists between the parties.
Something the judge may wish to consider ?

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 174
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Guest on 25.04.12 12:31

OMG,

Tony, did you ask for this information? If not then it looks like they are trying to scare you to death!

[quote] PeterMac

It does however, re-inforce your point about the inequality which exists between the parties.
Something the judge may wish to consider ?


Quite.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.04.12 12:36

@PeterMac wrote:This is blackmail.
It is a flagrant attempt to force you to concede.
The Law Society should look at this.
It does however, re-inforce your point about the inequality which exists between the parties.
Something the judge may wish to consider ?
One interesting point is that on the very day that Carter-Ruck posted me this letter, the Law Society came up with a new Practice Note on 'Dealing with Litigants in Person'.

This Practice Note says:

3 Your approach and the SRA Code

Amendments to the Handbook since the introduction of OFR in October 2011 do not impact upon your duties to clients and LiPs. Your duties to act in the best interests of your client, and to the court (see section 4), remain paramount. However, the SRA Code refers to other specific considerations relevant to your dealings with LiPs.

IB 11.7 states that you should not take 'unfair advantage' of an opposing party's lack of legal knowledge where they have not instructed a solicitor. Further, IB 11.9 states that you should not use your professional status or qualification to take 'unfair advantage' of another individual in order to advance your client's interests.

3.1 Taking 'unfair advantage'

Taking 'unfair advantage' refers to behaviour that any reasonable solicitor would regard as wrong and improper. That might include:

· bullying and unjustifiable threats;

· misleading or deceitful behaviour;

· claiming what cannot be properly claimed;

· demanding what cannot properly be demanded.

Such conduct is likely to be penalised if identified by a judge or upon complaint.

Conversely, knowing and using law and procedure effectively against your opponent because you have the skills to do so, whether that be as against a qualified representative or an unrepresented LiP, would not in itself be deemed to be either taking 'unfair advantage' or a breach of the SRA Code.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I am sure everyone will excuse me if I make no further comment on this thread, except to say that this doesn't I think meet the legal definition of blackmail - but it is certainly a lot of money to silence someone for some articles amd postings on a website amd forum usually seen by no more than 100-200 people a day

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14728
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Guest on 25.04.12 12:37

But I thought Kate said they were working quietly behind the scenes for no fee?
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

"Without Payment"

Post by Tony Bennett on 25.04.12 12:44

@admin wrote:But I thought Kate said they were working quietly behind the scenes for no fee?
The actual quote [pp. 289-290 of Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine'] is:

"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".

In earlier correspondence between me and Carter-Ruck in this matter, when I raised the subject of this specific quote, Carter-Ruck told me that this didn't apply to bringing committal proceedings against me.

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14728
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by tiny on 25.04.12 12:48

They are tring to frighten you Mr Bennet,i wonder if it is because they are going to lose.
avatar
tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Estelle on 25.04.12 14:54

I don't think this is normal protocol, Tony, is it? How often is this done?

So I also assume that this is tactical and represents putting pressure on you to settle out of court.

They must not have a very strong case against you then.

Once in a workers compensation case I lodged, the other side claimed that they had 25 witnesses prepared to give evidence against me. I did not believe them.

The other side's solicitor also sent me a letter which talked about the cost of defamation generally trying to implant the message that they were going to mount a case against me.

I saw both these tactics as strategies to instill fear in me to drop it.

However, I saw them as desperate measures and it gave me more confidence and belief that I was going to win the case.
avatar
Estelle

Posts : 388
Reputation : 83
Join date : 2009-12-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by pauline on 25.04.12 15:19

This threatening behaviour does not surprise me and I agree with an earlier poster that they know the outcome of the case is uncertain.

Is there a system of taxing(appealing) costs. You surely don't need to have someone of partner status monitoring this site with a horrendous chargeout rate? The partners don't need to be doing the massive amount of photocopying needed to create all the stuff delivered to Tony Bennett. Legal costs are often significantly reduced because many firms just try it on, and the costs cannot be justified by any objective criteria.

Would it help if people write to the Law Society querying C-Rs behaviour. The Law Society might be forced to write to C-R if they got lots of letters, if only to inform them that some members of the public feel that they are bringing the profession into disrepute. the Law Society ought to care about that, this case is about free speach.
avatar
pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by jmac on 25.04.12 18:40

It`s certainly `bullying and unjustifiable threats`and complaints could be made on that basis I think.

jmac

Posts : 121
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by hjb on 25.04.12 19:59

My son last year had a legal issue which should have been resolved in Small Claims as it was under £5,000. He issued a summons. The defendant instructed a top firm of lawyers and advised my son to drop the case failing which they would elevate the case to a higher court (where costs could be awarded). My son refused to back down. The other side applied for the case to be struck out and before the first court battle issued my son with a list of costs (about £8,000)....The judge said that the case should not be struck out and deferred the issue of costs...failing settlement we moved to a court hearing but the other side applied to have the case elevated from small claims to multi track...at various times they issued us with a list of costs....my son was told that if he went to court and lost and it was in fast track or multi track costs would be around £40,000...It was not a complex case and not just about money but could easily be resolved in court with only two witnessess (not expert)..Small Claims was perfect.

My son was told that the demand of costs prior to a case is a normal tactic but its a scare tactic...he did the case himself but had friends (solictors) to give advice....In the end he did not back down and would have taken the case to court but he reached what he thought was a fair negotiated settlement..

hjb

Posts : 1
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2012-04-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by jmac on 26.04.12 2:37

There has been a great deal of excitement and flurry all over this site I have noted in recent times. But there has not been a flurry of excitement concerning Tony Bennett to the same extent.



I THINK THIS SHOWS WHERE PRIORITIES LIE ON THIS SITE?

jmac

Posts : 121
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by jmac on 26.04.12 2:44

You know it`s true, and



of course freedom of speech,



and the evidence.





blah blah blah

jmac

Posts : 121
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by aiyoyo on 26.04.12 4:40

@pauline wrote:This threatening behaviour does not surprise me and I agree with an earlier poster that they know the outcome of the case is uncertain.

Is there a system of taxing(appealing) costs. You surely don't need to have someone of partner status monitoring this site with a horrendous chargeout rate? The partners don't need to be doing the massive amount of photocopying needed to create all the stuff delivered to Tony Bennett. Legal costs are often significantly reduced because many firms just try it on, and the costs cannot be justified by any objective criteria.

Would it help if people write to the Law Society querying C-Rs behaviour. The Law Society might be forced to write to C-R if they got lots of letters, if only to inform them that some members of the public feel that they are bringing the profession into disrepute. the Law Society ought to care about that, this case is about free speach.

I would say that if people wish to complain to the Law Society about CR, they would have to do so of their own accord, on their own initiative.
TB cant be asked about this, as he can't possibly answer this without implication for him.

If the complaint has merits the Law Society is obliged to look into it, irrespective whether they received a single or multiples complaint.

avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Spaniel on 26.04.12 9:24

@jmac wrote:There has been a great deal of excitement and flurry all over this site I have noted in recent times. But there has not been a flurry of excitement concerning Tony Bennett to the same extent.



I THINK THIS SHOWS WHERE PRIORITIES LIE ON THIS SITE?
In my case you couldn't be more wrong, as I have huge concern for his plight, but as I'm not a lawyer or wealthy how could I possibly help Tony?

Those who are able to help in any way I would imagine do so privately, as it wouldn't be wise to post advice or suggestions on an open forum.

I am thankful for the little updates Tony provides, and for what it's worth from a layperson, I believe it's normal for both sides to update on costs. It's the sheer amount that I find staggering.

Please don't take lack of comments as lack of concern jmac.
avatar
Spaniel

Posts : 742
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-01-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Guest on 26.04.12 9:39

Strange comments, Jmac. I certainly am very sympathetic towards Tony Bennett. I don't agree with everything he says and does but I admire his courage in standing up to bully boy tactics.

I hadn't posted earlier on the amount of fees so far claimed by Carter-Ruck as I was somewhat shell-shocked!
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by jay2001 on 26.04.12 20:27

How can they justify those costs? The justice system in this country is abysmal. We have people getting off on technicalities with smartarse lawyers like Mr Loophole (he's trademarked the name) and people like Abu Quatada, who came here illegally, hates the west and preaches poison getting legal aid and probably compensation! What a sad state of affairs.

As far as the Law Society goes not sure if they can help as in my experience 20 odd years ago they didn't help me. Brief summary OH taken to court over a building dispute. He was told by a barrister that the other side's costs were already around £4k and if we continued the case we'd have to pay the judge's costs. Our surveyor advised that we had to put our principles in our pockets. We felt we were definitely in the right, otherwise we wouldn't have gone to court. Our solicitor was useless and the opposition's was a supercilious, snivelling shyster, but he was in a different league to the plonker we had.

We couldn't afford to carry on and capitulated. I've never had faith in justice since and found out that the judge's fees come out of the public purse. That's why I complained to the Law Society, but they didn't want to know. I think they close ranks. Various things happen through life that make you older and wiser!

CR costs are probably so high because of the huge number of 'items' they had and then they had to reduce them to 10 and still came up with 20 odd. If there is any justice the judge will rule that as there is no proof of abduction, why can't anyone put up any other theory. But then what do I know as a non-legal twerp.

jay2001

Posts : 117
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2012-01-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by jd on 27.04.12 0:08

@jmac wrote:There has been a great deal of excitement and flurry all over this site I have noted in recent times. But there has not been a flurry of excitement concerning Tony Bennett to the same extent.

I THINK THIS SHOWS WHERE PRIORITIES LIE ON THIS SITE?

YOU ARE SO WRONG MY FRIEND. Our priorities totally lie behind Tony every single step of the way. We don't need to behave immaturely and dishonestly like the mccans and their cronies...Justice works in silence
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by Guest on 27.04.12 0:10

@jd wrote:
@jmac wrote:There has been a great deal of excitement and flurry all over this site I have noted in recent times. But there has not been a flurry of excitement concerning Tony Bennett to the same extent.

I THINK THIS SHOWS WHERE PRIORITIES LIE ON THIS SITE?

YOU ARE SO WRONG MY FRIEND. Our priorities totally lie behind Tony every single step of the way. We don't need to behave immaturely and dishonestly like the mccans and their cronies...Justice works in silence

jd, good to see you back thumbsup
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by jd on 27.04.12 0:11

Thank you...I see we still have 'company' spouting the ridiculous!
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 23
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4752p20-carter-ruck-s-costs-in-the-case-of-mccanns-v-bennett-exceed-120000-already#105163

Post by alfie02 on 27.04.12 8:34

@jd wrote:Thank you...I see we still have 'company' spouting the ridiculous!



I have to agree with you there JD, and i feel that due to the"NEW 195" Leads as stated in Panorama that we shall be hearing a lot from the"company"
avatar
alfie02

Posts : 55
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-08-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by littlepixie on 30.04.12 11:03

Tony Bennett has my full support. I will make sure that as many people as possible are aware of his situation.

I hope all those from 3As who contributed to the leaflets etc will do the same.

I am sure the British Public, who from what I have recently read are VERY sceptical of the abduction theory, will be very shocked at what is going on and what is NOT being reported.
avatar
littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already

Post by pauline on 17.05.12 11:45

An interesting report in today's Irish papers which may give some hope to Tony Bennett re costs.

We have a system of taxing(appealing) legal costs and I presume there's a similar set up in the UK.

The Taxing Master has just reduced claimed costs of €275,000 to €80,000 in a defamation case. In essence the case involved a TV programme in which the state broadcaster claimed that a priest fathered a child while working in Africa. The programme makers refused to let him take a DNA test to prove his innocence and went ahead. Subsequently he took the test which proved he was not the father. There was a large out of court settlement agreed.

the taxing master said, amongst other things, that lawyers must take into account current economic circumstances (which would apply just as much in the UK) when setting fees. Carter Ruck take note!
avatar
pauline

Posts : 548
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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