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

TB was refused legal aid on the grounds that he had something more than £ 8,000 in savings.
How many hours, or minutes, of legal assistance would that £ 8,000 pay for, if he were to have a team of equivalent malevolence.
I am sure we can work it out.

Bob Southgate wrote:Have they provided you with a full itemised breakdown of how they arrive at that figure Tony?

I hope that they do. There are quite extensive rules around the matter of billing I believe.
IF it transpires that a big wedge of the bill relates to hours spent spying on here, say at £200 per hours, searching for hundreds of alleged breaches, I would contend that it would constitute sharp practice. If the point could be made and evidence gathered from 4 or 5 breaches, then it would suggest profiteering. They would of course justify it by saying that the greater the body of evidence the more serious the breach. One could counter argue that 4 or 5 breaches is legalistically the same as 500 breaches. You can't rack up a never ending cost by surfing the net all day, that simply isn't good practice. The SRA and the LS would be able to advise.

I know Judge T asked CR at the earlier hearing to reduce the number of breaches brought before the court, and they half complied by reducing the number, but DISOBEYED the Judges recommended number, and more than doubled it IIRC. He KNOWS already that they have gone way over the top, and made it clear he wasn't very impressed if I read it right.

We all have to be able to live with ourself, and if there is some day of judgement as we slip off our mortal coil, we have to be able to face that with a clear conscience, responsible for any outcome. Now, Tony is a committed Christian, the Mc's claim to be also, but I'd bet my life on the one who will, when the time comes, walk towards their judgement with their shoulders back and purpose in their stride.



(The others will just be quietly pooping their undergarments)

PeterMac wrote:TB was refused legal aid on the grounds that he had something more than £ 8,000 in savings.
How many hours, or minutes, of legal assistance would that £ 8,000 pay for, if he were to have a team of equivalent malevolence.
I am sure we can work it out.

That is a very good point PM.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:[
We all have to be able to live with ourself, and if there is some day of judgement as we slip off our mortal coil, we have to be able to face that with a clear conscience, responsible for any outcome. Now, Tony is a committed Christian, the Mc's claim to be also, but I'd bet my life on the one who will, when the time comes, walk towards their judgement with their shoulders back and purpose in their stride.

The MCCanns claim a lot of things. Things the PJ and others royally dispute.

I wonder if the T7 have read the above quoted sentence. If anyone reading knows them, please pass it on....

monkey mind wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:[
We all have to be able to live with ourself, and if there is some day of judgement as we slip off our mortal coil, we have to be able to face that with a clear conscience, responsible for any outcome. Now, Tony is a committed Christian, the Mc's claim to be also, but I'd bet my life on the one who will, when the time comes, walk towards their judgement with their shoulders back and purpose in their stride.

The MCCanns claim a lot of things. Things the PJ and others royally dispute.

I wonder if the T7 have read the above quoted sentence. If anyone reading knows them, please pass it on....

If Kate McCann can justify leaving her three children alone for several nights in an unlocked apartment abroad and then have the neck to accept an ambassadorial role for MissingPeople she doesn't have much trouble with her conscience imo.

4. Fees of Adrienne Page Q.C., for advice and a 2-day hearing: 30k+

I do hope Tony has sent them an outline of his "bill"
Tony must be worth more than adrienne page as they had a whole team up a against just one TB.

Good luck Tony I think you may need it

Tony, surely this should actually give you more confidence now to go to court and show these barstewards up for what they are.

admin wrote:Tony, surely this should actually give you more confidence now to go to court and show these barstewards up for what they are.

Abso-flippin-lutely!!

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.

Aiyoyo - there's no way CR will be doing this for free. Their fees are guaranteed by somebody. At this rate the fund (if it is the fund) / the funder will run out of cash / patience sooner rather than later trying to silence the groundswell of dissenting voices. It's like schoolkids building a sandcastle with a little flag saying 'we told the truth' on the top trying to hold back the tide. What irony if the facade collapses due to lack of cash.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

admin wrote:Tony, surely this should actually give you more confidence now to go to court and show these barstewards up for what they are.

Abso-flippin-lutely!!

Leaving No Stone Unturned

Since there appears to be a contradiction from what CR has represented to the court and what Kate has publicly acknowledged thru her book can CR be compelled to identify who/how their fee's are being covered?

AS my late father did say;

"Ya can't take trousers off a bare arse!"

My favourite quote with a similar meaning is you can't get sh*t from a rocking-horse.

No shortage of that though at the moment from the world's most famous shyster lawyers.

roy rovers wrote:

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.

Aiyoyo - there's no way CR will be doing this for free. Their fees are guaranteed by somebody. At this rate the fund (if it is the fund) / the funder will run out of cash / patience sooner rather than later trying to silence the groundswell of dissenting voices. It's like schoolkids building a sandcastle with a little flag saying 'we told the truth' on the top trying to hold back the tide. What irony if the facade collapses due to lack of cash.

You are likely right. I can't see CR doing it FOC.
Who is guaranteeing this is left to be seen.
I suspect we will never learn the name of the anonymous benefactor but can deduce who it would be as only one person has publicly pledged financial support for the Mccanns.

I don't understand legal stuff and I definitely don't understand how costs are arrived at. A relatively recent libel trial (October 2012) saw Frankie Boyle receive damages from the Daily Mirror of just under 55,000 pounds (which he gave to charity). Frankie Boyle is not a racist and was successful in his libel action. It was also reported in the Daily Mail (link below) that he was also awarded costs of around 100,000 pounds.

This libel trial at the High Court was a week long. It saw the celebrity taking on a tabloid newspaper. Costs - 100,000 pounds (according to the DM).

The McCanns are taking on a pensioner defending himself in a 1 1/2 day trial (not a libel trial). Costs - 288,000 pounds.

Am I being naive in questioning the difference in costs?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221486/Frankie-Boyle-Comedian-wins-54-000-libel-payout-branded-racist-Daily-Mirror.html

@aquila
Each lawyer, barrister, QC has a price tag. The Mccanns have picked some of the most expensive ones to represent them including Caplan and Page, knowing perhaps that someone will be bankrolling their legal costs regardless. Just my impression.

aiyoyo wrote:

roy rovers wrote:

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.

Aiyoyo - there's no way CR will be doing this for free. Their fees are guaranteed by somebody. At this rate the fund (if it is the fund) / the funder will run out of cash / patience sooner rather than later trying to silence the groundswell of dissenting voices. It's like schoolkids building a sandcastle with a little flag saying 'we told the truth' on the top trying to hold back the tide. What irony if the facade collapses due to lack of cash.

You are likely right. I can't see CR doing it FOC.
Who is guaranteeing this is left to be seen.
I suspect we will never learn the name of the anonymous benefactor but can deduce who it would be as only one person has publicly pledged financial support for the Mccanns.

He also said the battle has just commenced.

aquila wrote:I don't understand legal stuff and I definitely don't understand how costs are arrived at. A relatively recent libel trial (October 2012) saw Frankie Boyle receive damages from the Daily Mirror of just under 55,000 pounds (which he gave to charity). Frankie Boyle is not a racist and was successful in his libel action. It was also reported in the Daily Mail (link below) that he was also awarded costs of around 100,000 pounds.

This libel trial at the High Court was a week long. It saw the celebrity taking on a tabloid newspaper. Costs - 100,000 pounds (according to the DM).

The McCanns are taking on a pensioner defending himself in a 1 1/2 day trial (not a libel trial). Costs - 288,000 pounds.

Am I being naive in questioning the difference in costs?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221486/Frankie-Boyle-Comedian-wins-54-000-libel-payout-branded-racist-Daily-Mirror.html

They're sending a message to anybody else out there who might be considering writing about the case. The whole thing is a show of strength.

tcat --i agree it is about sending the message that they have the best if needed lawyers -- is this the beginning of the end ? anyone that dares to question them this is what they can expect

tcat wrote:
They're sending a message to anybody else out there who might be considering writing about the case. The whole thing is a show of strength.

They are also very aware that the ground they stand on is far from solid and need best barristers in the land to protect them.

It really is time a Judge slapped Carter Ruck down, it is time for the bully boy tactics to be stopped

Even the K&G supporters are nervous about CR's tactics. That isn't a good sign for K&G I think.

I think they have gone a step too far, the Brits like to support the underdog, lots of people asking questions now.

stargazer59 wrote:I think they have gone a step too far, the Brits like to support the underdog, lots of people asking questions now.

We Brits do indeed support the underdog. The McCann's were supported with massive donations because their daughter went missing on a holiday in Portugal. Since then they have formed a limited liability company, sued people, written bewk(s), asked for more and more money to be donated, made the British taxpayer fund a 'review' (whatever that is supposed to be), stopped their own 'search' with the Funds - and whether they like it or not people bought the book in good faith donating to that Fund. They have produced minimal accounting information. They have met the Pope, sat on Oprah's sofa, visited the Whitehouse, spoken at a UK Police conference, sat on the sofas of UK and European television several times, been supported by football crowds, celebrities and politicians to name but a few.

KM has accepted an ambassadorial role for Missing People even though as a mother she left her children alone not just the once. They (the McCanns) were included in the Leveson Inquiry even though their PR chap said their phones weren't hacked. They have taken part in the 'Hacked Off' campaign. This is a press-gagging campaign. The McCanns had already sued the press and received handsome payouts from the existing system.

The McCanns received an unprecedented amount of governmental support. What other parents can you think of who have received everything the UK had to give and still does?

The McCanns are not the underdogs. They are now (and this is only my opinion) risen to the realms of business-speak.

Before Madeleine disappeared they were a couple of doctors who didn't run a business and were presumably not dealing with millions of pounds. In the almost six years since Madeleine's disappearance they are now high-profile people (only when it pleases them to be) who have a business borne of their lack of parenting which resulted in their children being left alone and one of them disappeared. This business is not actively searching for Madeleine.

Suing people is normal now to the McCanns. How many times have they done it?

I feel sorry for the McCanns. To have come out in public and say 'we left our kids alone, we were really wrong, don't ever do it, please help us, we screwed up, Madeleine's gone, please help us' would have me and most of the UK public in complete support not just at the time but now.

We Brits love the underdog. As long as the underdog is telling the truth.