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 as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Mm11

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Regist10

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by C.Edwards on 09.01.13 14:11

Just to help me try and understand this...

If, for argument's sake Tony, you thought your next door neighbours were carrying on an illegal activity - say growing marijuana or something and you started putting up signs in your front garden saying, "my next door neighbours are criminals!", "police! arrest these people", "nasty criminals live here (with arrow pointing to neighbour's house, obviously!)" then your neighbours objected and took you to court unless you pulled down those signs and agreed to stop saying those things and you agreed as you didn't fancy a court case...

But then you subsequently discovered new evidence - say you saw them sneaking out with plants in the dead of night or saw their plants through the window and put the signs back up in your garden and they actually took you to court again as you'd broken your agreement...

Would your defence in that second case be, "I am entitled to put the signs back up again as I KNOW they are what I say they are, I have seen the evidence with my own eyes" or would it be something else? Assuming, of course, that you made an application after being summonsed to vary your undertaking to keep quiet and not erect such signs.

You see, I fail to see how you can possibly win the initial case against you right now as it appears to be a simple matter of you, no matter how much you regret giving those undertakings at the time, simply choosing to ignore those undertakings - it does appear to be very clear cut. Whereas I can see the logic behind Justice Tugendhat's stance on "hey, maybe there wasn't a libel after all" I cannot see in a month of Sundays that any judge is going to say it's ok for anyone to ignore an undertaking just because *they* felt it was given under duress or had changed their mind - that's a unilateral act and cannot be supported in law.

Your only hope would appear to be that the court decides that they cannot possibly punish you for an undertaking if it's possible to prove that your undertaking shouldn't have been asked for in the first place - i.e. you can successfully prove that everything you've said is true and/or fair comment. Knowing what a proverbial ass the law is from bitter experience, I really cannot see how a court can take that line and prevent utter carnage in the legal system as people would simply ignore undertakings all over the place and try and force others into court for a chance to prove they had the right to fair comment or whatever they gave the undertaking for.

At the moment it appears as if it'll be a matter of, "Mr. Bennett, did you agree not to say/do x?", "yes", "did you subsequently go on to do/say x?", "yes, but only because I was tricked into...", "Mr. Bennett, it's a case of 'yes' or 'no'" and I can't see that they'll have any option other than to find in the McCann's favour. Your hope that they will allow you to mitigate your actions by way of having the chance to drag the McCanns into a full libel action seems very dependent on whether the court allows for undertakings to be retrospectively varied by one side only in that undertaking and I just cannot see an English court doing that.

I sincerely hope I'm wrong - I would love to see the McCanns have to defend some (maybe even most) of their words and actions in a libel trial as I think there will be a whole lot of loose ends pulled at that will make things very hard for them indeed. I wish you luck and hope that you get a sympathetic hearing as, you're right, there's a huge inequality or arms here. I'm just not sure that it's safe for the law of the land to condone someone (apparently) breaking an undertaking as appears on face value to be the case.
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by PeterMac on 09.01.13 15:14

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@bristow wrote:Whilst I back Tony whole heartedly I do think that it is not good to air on a public forum the ins and outs of what he will do and say, CR et al will be reading feverishly and amending and altering anything that could remotely put them in the wrong, they are being given a preview of what Tony will be saying on the day, thus watering down any impact Tony could have on the day.
FOR INFORMATION

What I've been saying on the forum about the case recently is all, one way or another, within my written submissions to the court which Carter-Ruck (and the court) have had for months e.g. they know all about the Spiller v Joseph case

Quite so. Whatever else Carter-Ruck may be, they are not stupid.
Adam Tudor took a First at Oxford in law (Jurispridence) and others in the firm are similarly qualified. Matorell was at Cambridge
They know precisely what will be said, and will even now be trying to sort out the wording of questions so that they get exactly the right answer.

That is how it works.
It is an intricate intellectual ballet, far removed from the dirt of facts and evidence, concerned solely with minute legal niceties of whether five or more angels are likely to overcrowd the head of a pin, and if peradventure one should fall off, whether it could be held that the others were guilty of contributory negligence.
A decent lawyer ( or detective) never asks a question unless he or she already knows the answer.

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10734
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by david_uk on 09.01.13 15:59

@bristow wrote:Whilst I back Tony whole heartedly I do think that it is not good to air on a public forum the ins and outs of what he will do and say, CR et al will be reading feverishly and amending and altering anything that could remotely put them in the wrong, they are being given a preview of what Tony will be saying on the day, thus watering down any impact Tony could have on the day.


I have said the same on numerous occasions. As much as I like to know whats going on, I think TB should keep his cards close to his chest and not post anything on here publicly. high5

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion
david_uk
david_uk

Posts : 320
Join date : 2012-01-20

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by PeterMac on 09.01.13 16:02

@david_uk wrote:
@bristow wrote:Whilst I back Tony whole heartedly I do think that it is not good to air on a public forum the ins and outs of what he will do and say, CR et al will be reading feverishly and amending and altering anything that could remotely put them in the wrong, they are being given a preview of what Tony will be saying on the day, thus watering down any impact Tony could have on the day.
I have said the same on numerous occasions. As much as I like to know whats going on, I think TB should keep his cards close to his chest and not post anything on here publicly.
Perhaps he does have some spare Aces !

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10734
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Guest on 09.01.13 16:41

@tiny wrote:Why all this stalling, are the mccanns waiting for Mr Amarals case to be heard first or will they try to stall that as well,or are they waiting to see what the review kicks up, I have said it before that the mccanns do not want this to go to court.

I agree with you 100%. The Mccann's will do anything they can to avoid an appearance before a law court, now I wonder why that might be?
Anonymous
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by david_uk on 09.01.13 17:02

Gollum wrote:
@tiny wrote:Why all this stalling, are the mccanns waiting for Mr Amarals case to be heard first or will they try to stall that as well,or are they waiting to see what the review kicks up, I have said it before that the mccanns do not want this to go to court.

I agree with you 100%. The Mccann's will do anything they can to avoid an appearance before a law court, now I wonder why that might be?

Dont know!! but after seeing Gerry so furious after the Amaral court cases it could be interesting!. What did he say again! something like This is about this girl? I need to see that clip again! I couldn't believe the guy was talking about his own daughter!!

____________________
“Oh, what a tangled web we weave...when first we practice to deceive.”
Walter Scott, Marmion
david_uk
david_uk

Posts : 320
Join date : 2012-01-20

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: TB Court date

Post by Monty Heck on 09.01.13 19:26

I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?


  • Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.
  • The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court
  • the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term
  • the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge
  • the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed

I know nothing of English law but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?
avatar
Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by C.Edwards on 09.01.13 19:51

Interesting post Monty. This is where, I feel, the wriggle room is for lawyers to get rich. What's "law" and what's "common sense" can be miles apart sometimes. From what I understand basically Tony consented to the undertaking on the basis that this stopped the full libel trial. If he'd believed he had a defence of fair comment at the time then he should have (theoretically, of course, we all understand the issues with costs) carried on into the libel trial - it's a little like bluffing at poker, you only get to see the cards if you call the bluff and run the risk of losing the hand. If you fold beforehand then you don't get to see the cards, sadly, and you just never know.

The only hope I think he has on the pure contempt side is if he can prove duress, which will invalidate the undertaking. Duress is notoriously hard to prove so I'm not convinced it will work.

Anyhow, all conjecture. I know no better than Justice Tugendhat who is of the opinion this is best handled by a proper libel trial so maybe that's the only way for it to go, but it'll take flipping ages to get there even if Tony Manages to steer things that way!

Edited to add: Even if Tony is found to be in contempt, apparently the sentence won't be decided upon until after the other proceedings (assuming there are some)
avatar
C.Edwards

Posts : 144
Join date : 2011-05-13

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by monkey mind on 09.01.13 19:58

@david_uk wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@tiny wrote:Why all this stalling, are the mccanns waiting for Mr Amarals case to be heard first or will they try to stall that as well,or are they waiting to see what the review kicks up, I have said it before that the mccanns do not want this to go to court.

I agree with you 100%. The Mccann's will do anything they can to avoid an appearance before a law court, now I wonder why that might be?

Dont know!! but after seeing Gerry so furious after the Amaral court cases it could be interesting!. What did he say again! something like This is about this girl? I need to see that clip again! I couldn't believe the guy was talking about his own daughter!!
“This girl”. Which girl david?

Is it the almost 4 year old that he and his wife stuck in the crèche every day in a foreign country then left unattended in an unfamiliar and unlocked apartment on the ground floor right next to a public car parking area five nights on the trot while he and his wife were drinking with their friends some distance away? The one who didn’t have her own toothbrush on her ‘holiday’.

If so.

I can believe that.
monkey mind
monkey mind

Posts : 616
Join date : 2011-12-19

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 09.01.13 20:33

[quote="PeterMac"]
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@bristow wrote:Whilst I back Tony whole heartedly I do think that it is not good to air on a public forum the ins and outs of what he will do and say, CR et al will be reading feverishly and amending and altering anything that could remotely put them in the wrong, they are being given a preview of what Tony will be saying on the day, thus watering down any impact Tony could have on the day.
FOR INFORMATION

What I've been saying on the forum about the case recently is all, one way or another, within my written submissions to the court which Carter-Ruck (and the court) have had for months e.g. they know all about the Spiller v Joseph case

Quite so. Whatever else Carter-Ruck may be, they are not stupid.
Adam Tudor took a First at Oxford in law (Jurispridence) and others in the firm are similarly qualified. Matorell was at Cambridge
They know precisely what will be said, and will even now be trying to sort out the wording of questions so that they get exactly the right answer.

That is how it works.
It is an intricate intellectual ballet, far removed from the dirt of facts and evidence, concerned solely with minute legal niceties of whether five or more angels are likely to overcrowd the head of a pin, and if peradventure one should fall off, whether it could be held that the others were guilty of contributory negligence.
A decent lawyer ( or detective) never asks a question unless he or she already knows the answer.[/quote}

And the greater the lawyers ability to execute semantic pirouettes, the higher the hourly rate.

____________________
The truth will out.
Smokeandmirrors
Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2427
Join date : 2011-07-31

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Tony Bennett on 09.01.13 21:07

@Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply


  • Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary


  • The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court

Absolutely correct


  • the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term

That's also 100% correct


  • the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect


  • the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed

I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time

____________________

Dr Martin Roberts: "The evidence is that these are the pjyamas Madeleine wore on holiday in Praia da Luz. They were photographed and the photo handed to a press agency, who released it on 8 May, as the search for Madeleine continued. The McCanns held up these same pyjamas at two press conferences on 5 & 7June 2007. How could Madeleine have been abducted?"

Amelie Mcann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".  

Tony Bennett
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 15592
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 72
Location : Shropshire

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re:COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Monty Heck on 09.01.13 21:30

Was about to log out when saw your post Tony, thank you for that. The description bizarre doesn't seem adequate but there probably isn't a better way of describing this judicially backed folly. You certainly don't miss much as the "pursuer" reference would have passed unnoticed by most! Good luck and good night.
avatar
Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by roy rovers on 09.01.13 23:42

Monty Heck wrote: 'but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven?'

Perhaps if the undertakings were registered into court before the judge as settlement of the claim that was to have been tried. (I'm no expert but I think conceptually that's how it goes).
roy rovers
roy rovers

Posts : 473
Join date : 2012-03-04

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Observer on 10.01.13 0:50

Gollum wrote:
@tiny wrote:Why all this stalling, are the mccanns waiting for Mr Amarals case to be heard first or will they try to stall that as well,or are they waiting to see what the review kicks up, I have said it before that the mccanns do not want this to go to court.

I agree with you 100%. The Mccann's will do anything they can to avoid an appearance before a law court, now I wonder why that might be?
Like I said before, there will be a "Very credible sighting" just prior to this hearing. The Judge will grant a postponement whilst the MC's head out by private jet to Ulan Bator, however they won't be able to return for the next hearing on time, claiming they have been held up by the "extremely unreliable" Mongolian HUSKIES public transport.
However things take a turn for the worst for the MC's in Mongolia, the UK media have reported that they have been abducted kidnapped, numerous reports have been published in the UK media regarding the identity of the abductor/s, kidnapper/s, still, almost six years on there has been no ransom request despite their healthy bank account fund, also millions of UK tax payers money have been spent on a whitewash review, as yet 195 no new clues have been found into their whereabouts.
avatar
Observer

Posts : 68
Join date : 2012-12-10

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Inspectorfrost on 10.01.13 1:06

@Observer wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@tiny wrote:Why all this stalling, are the mccanns waiting for Mr Amarals case to be heard first or will they try to stall that as well,or are they waiting to see what the review kicks up, I have said it before that the mccanns do not want this to go to court.

I agree with you 100%. The Mccann's will do anything they can to avoid an appearance before a law court, now I wonder why that might be?
Like I said before, there will be a "Very credible sighting" just prior to this hearing. The Judge will grant a postponement whilst the MC's head out by private jet to Ulan Bator, however they won't be able to return for the next hearing on time, claiming they have been held up by the "extremely unreliable" Mongolian HUSKIES public transport.
However things take a turn for the worst for the MC's in Mongolia, the UK media have reported that they have been abducted kidnapped, numerous reports have been published in the UK media regarding the identity of the abductor/s, kidnapper/s, still, almost six years on there has been no ransom request despite their healthy bank account fund, also millions of UK tax payers money have been spent on a whitewash review, as yet 195 no new clues have been found into their whereabouts.

LMFAO!
lol!

Gerry mccann doesnt like being anywhere near any court that might even suggest turn of events are not as they have been promoted, oh well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k5Q7QZNfFA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
avatar
Inspectorfrost

Posts : 841
Join date : 2012-12-09

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 10.01.13 1:49


Actually pseudo sightings before trial will backfire on them as it will be counter to their 'hinder the search" claims.

aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by aiyoyo on 10.01.13 1:54

@Inspectorfrost wrote:
@Observer wrote:
Gollum wrote:
@tiny wrote:Why all this stalling, are the mccanns waiting for Mr Amarals case to be heard first or will they try to stall that as well,or are they waiting to see what the review kicks up, I have said it before that the mccanns do not want this to go to court.

I agree with you 100%. The Mccann's will do anything they can to avoid an appearance before a law court, now I wonder why that might be?
Like I said before, there will be a "Very credible sighting" just prior to this hearing. The Judge will grant a postponement whilst the MC's head out by private jet to Ulan Bator, however they won't be able to return for the next hearing on time, claiming they have been held up by the "extremely unreliable" Mongolian HUSKIES public transport.
However things take a turn for the worst for the MC's in Mongolia, the UK media have reported that they have been abducted kidnapped, numerous reports have been published in the UK media regarding the identity of the abductor/s, kidnapper/s, still, almost six years on there has been no ransom request despite their healthy bank account fund, also millions of UK tax payers money have been spent on a whitewash review, as yet 195 no new clues have been found into their whereabouts.

LMFAO!
lol!

Gerry mccann doesnt like being anywhere near any court that might even suggest turn of events are not as they have been promoted, oh well

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k5Q7QZNfFA&feature=youtube_gdata_player

If they can get away with it they probably wont even show up.
Reporting of court proceedings isnt libelous, so I wonder whether the Press will splash on mc-can-litigate-news when the time comes.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Tombraider on 10.01.13 8:47

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Monty Heck wrote:I'm having difficulty understanding the legalities here so wonder if I have this right?

Stepping in for a moment just to answer you, 'Monty Heck', though it seems to me that you have a very good grasp of matters already. So here goes with a point-by-point reply


  • Someone takes a libel action against another in a civil court, but before any evidence of the alleged libel is put before the court, the person accused agrees to sign an undertaking that he will not do certain things. This agreement is effective for the rest of the accused's natural life.

More or less. The undertaking was given without time limit, which I understand is relativley unusual. It means the undertakings continue in force until the defendant [pursuer] successfully challenges the undertakings or the claimant deems that they are no longer necessary


  • The pursuers then request a stay of proceedings rather than dropping the case altogether and this is granted by the court

Absolutely correct


  • the accused is later accused of breaching the undertaking/s and is taken to court by the pursuer with a view to his being punished for breach of the undertaking/s which may mean a prison term

That's also 100% correct


  • the accused wishes to defend this on the basis that the undertaking/s were unfair or unfairly applied and a preliminary hearing is heard by a judge

That's more or less it, I have suggested to the court that the undertakings were 'unreasonable in the circumstances', or words to that effect


  • the judge points out that there may be no basis for the libel claim as it has never been before a court, therefore there may be no grounds for the alleged breach of undertaking but allows the case to proceed


I think that's substantially what the case on 5 and 6 February will be about

I know nothing of English law

I can tell that by the use of the Scottish legal term 'pursuer'

but can someone actually be sentenced to imprisonment for breaching an undertaking given in a case where the facts as claimed by the pursuer have not been heard in court, far less proven? Further, the pursuers can resist removal of the stay on the original libel case brought by them and which they had put in place, and that this will therefore stand ad infinitum unless they decide to proceed further?

The way you put the question, the whole situation seems grossly unfair, and utterly bizarre, but I guess I'll have to wait and see how the judge analyses all this in just under 4 weeks' time





It would appear that there is an element of deception involved with this case, by that I mean in obtaining the item which resulted in the breach of the undertaking?
avatar
Tombraider

Posts : 61
Join date : 2012-12-24

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Ange on 10.01.13 17:59


Could someone tell me if there's a time out on this forum please? I replied on this thread just there, went to post and and had to log in again. Yet I'd unknowingly stayed logged on for over 24 hours the other day. Not sure if the problem's mine as my laptop froze when I initially signed in earlier, thanks for any information.
avatar
Ange

Posts : 40
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Observer on 10.01.13 18:08

@Ange wrote:
Could someone tell me if there's a time out on this forum please? I replied on this thread just there, went to post and and had to log in again. Yet I'd unknowingly stayed logged on for over 24 hours the other day. Not sure if the problem's mine as my laptop froze when I initially signed in earlier, thanks for any information.
I don't think there is a time out, however if you were posting a reply, you must have been signed in, as it is not possible to post unless you are signed in. Hope that makes sense.
avatar
Observer

Posts : 68
Join date : 2012-12-10

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by bristow on 10.01.13 18:24

@Ange wrote:
Could someone tell me if there's a time out on this forum please? I replied on this thread just there, went to post and and had to log in again. Yet I'd unknowingly stayed logged on for over 24 hours the other day. Not sure if the problem's mine as my laptop froze when I initially signed in earlier, thanks for any information.

Sounds like you might need to clear your cache and some cookies.
I had this problem on Ancestry a couple of days ago and they recommended I did that, and it worked.
bristow
bristow

Posts : 823
Join date : 2011-11-24

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Ange on 10.01.13 18:50

@Observer wrote:
@Ange wrote:
Could someone tell me if there's a time out on this forum please? I replied on this thread just there, went to post and and had to log in again. Yet I'd unknowingly stayed logged on for over 24 hours the other day. Not sure if the problem's mine as my laptop froze when I initially signed in earlier, thanks for any information.
I don't think there is a time out, however if you were posting a reply, you must have been signed in, as it is not possible to post unless you are signed in. Hope that makes sense.


Sorry, I don't think I was clear enough, Observer. I'd written my reply, previewed it and hit send. It didn't happen, and the log in box appeared. I had only been logged on here for about half an hour and spent a bit of time reading before I replied to a post. You probably know that in some forums you have to check you're still logged on if you've spent some time reading before you post, and I was thinking it may be the same here, after X amount of time if you follow me. Though I wondered if maybe my laptop was playing up, as when I initially logged in here earlier in the day, it froze and I had to re-boot it. Thank you for replying.
avatar
Ange

Posts : 40
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Ange on 10.01.13 18:52

@bristow wrote:
@Ange wrote:
Could someone tell me if there's a time out on this forum please? I replied on this thread just there, went to post and and had to log in again. Yet I'd unknowingly stayed logged on for over 24 hours the other day. Not sure if the problem's mine as my laptop froze when I initially signed in earlier, thanks for any information.

Sounds like you might need to clear your cache and some cookies.
I had this problem on Ancestry a couple of days ago and they recommended I did that, and it worked.

Thanks Bristow, I didn't even think of that today, I'll do that now. smilie
avatar
Ange

Posts : 40
Join date : 2013-01-06

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by Liz Eagles on 10.01.13 18:56

Hi Bristow and Ange,

There is a technical help section on the forum to post on for technical help just so we can keep the original posts going.
Liz Eagles
Liz Eagles

Posts : 9575
Join date : 2011-09-03

Back to top Go down

COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013 - Page 3 Empty Re: COURT DATE NOW CONFIRMED: Tues 5th and Weds 6th February 2013

Post by sonic72 on 10.01.13 21:19

@neeley111 wrote:
Mr. Bennett ,
What do you mean "I don't think there as never been a case like this" ? Your part in this case is quite trivial in the scheme of things. It probably won't even make the red tops.
Do you get it yet Mr. Bennett ?
No one on here cares about you and what you are going through at all. Your posts are mostly ignored.
You have persecuted the McCann's for years and now you will reap what you have sowed.
Amen to that.x.

Pam Gurney (and many other internet alias') aka Kate McCann, your tactics are futile, don't make your situation any worse than it already is! You're just digging a bigger hole each time you comment, and believe me, your hole is too big now.

____________________

sonic72
sonic72

Posts : 342
Join date : 2012-09-09

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 5 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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