Re: Carter-Ruck explain why they've appointed Adrienne Page Q.C. to beef up their legal firepower

by russiandoll 01.02.13 14:58

the Court is likely to require significant assistance from Counsel "

why this decision now, they have known for a long time that TB is representing himself To actually make it sound as if this woman is a court-appointed neutral, are they having a laugh?
Interesting that there is this need to explain their decision.
Interesting to find out the judge's reaction to it.

by sombrero 01.02.13 15:37

Sounds like an acceptance that three other lawyers are not good enough to deal with this case.

I wonder if there will be a late settlement offer by the Claimant?

I agree that this case is very serious for the defendant but in my view its more serious for the Claimant.

by tiny 01.02.13 15:42

sombrero wrote:Sounds like an acceptance that three other lawyers are not good enough to deal with this case.

I wonder if there will be a late settlement offer by the Claimant?

I agree that this case is very serious for the defendant but in my view its more serious for the Claimant.

yes it does seem that way.i still will be suprised if this get in court,they have tried to frighten Tony to death ,but surely they can see that hasnt worked,so what will be there next suprise be i wonder,very interesting times me thinks

by Guest 01.02.13 15:43

Carter-Ruck explain why they've appointed Adrienne Page Q.C. to beef up their legal firepower - Page 2 4239481642

sombrero, thanks for joining us.

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 15:44

Mirage wrote:We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

I wonder if the judge will take kindly to this high-handedness. This should be read out in court.

Did they ask TB for his opinion before hand when they made that decision? So how can they speak for TB?
They came up with this pathetic excuse to justify their ladening up the cost for TB.

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 15:55

Tony Bennett wrote:

"Your self-represented status means that the Court is likely to require significant assistance from Counsel. . .We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

It would be interesting to watch Court's reaction to their brazenness.

The silken lady is obliged to serve her paying master ie the Mccanns, hence how is that going to be of help to TB?
Surely suggesting that her presence will ensure fairness to all parties is a bare face lie as would that not be conflict of interest?

Oh, the tangled web.......they weaved...

by bobbin 01.02.13 16:03

aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

"Your self-represented status means that the Court is likely to require significant assistance from Counsel. . .We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

How is the leading Counsel representing them is going to be of help to TB?
Wouldn't that be considered conflict of interest?

It would be interesting to watch Court's reaction to their brazenness.

Their brazenness for sure, but who are the "ALL" parties ?
Surely they are only talking about McCanns and Bennet, therefore, at best to BOTH PARTIES.
Are they widening it to include ANOTHER PARTY ?
Perhaps their wording is not so sloppy after all, perhaps they really do intend to include for the judge here, that their choice of 'silk' will be required to help Mr. Justice Tugendhat to be more efficient and fair in conducting the case.

by **PeterMac** 01.02.13 16:18

bobbin wrote:
Perhaps their wording is not so sloppy after all, perhaps they really do intend to include for the judge here, that their choice of 'silk' will be required to help Mr. Justice Tugendhat to be more efficient and fair in conducting the case.

But does that no imply, very clearly and on the record, that they think he otherwise would not be.

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 16:18

sombrero wrote:Sounds like an acceptance that three other lawyers are not good enough to deal with this case.

I wonder if there will be a late settlement offer by the Claimant?

I agree that this case is very serious for the defendant but in my view its more serious for the Claimant.

Wont be surprised this will pan out parallel to their case vs Amaral ie the Claimant caving in and offering to settle on TB's terms.

The only difference I fear in this case is that someone other than mccanns might be driving all these, and whoever that be may have targeted TB for personal reason, and money is no objection to ensure the complete destruction of TB, provided there is no IF.
If the stay of execution of the libel is lifted and ordered to go ahead then there's no way the Mccanns will want to be examined and their fairy tale coming under close scrutiny in Court under oath while potentially dragging others into their mud.

Hence the quantity and quality (cost wise) of Barristers and Lawyers to sway Judge away from ordering the execution of the libel.

Their under-estimation of the Judge may be their undoing.

by ShuBob 01.02.13 16:20

Having read TB's post I was going to say "I've heard it all now" but I'm sure there's more to come!

What are these people? IMO, the only people who can excuse this behaviour are those who know the couple indeed have questions to answer and have decided to back them come what may in the cover up.

by plebgate 01.02.13 16:26

Tony Bennett wrote:Today I've received a further letter from Carter-Ruck, dated yesterday, which explains why the McCanns are spending a further £32,000 hiring Adrienne Page Q.C. to try to prove that I am in contempt of court.

They say, and I quote verbatim:

"Your self-represented status means that the Court is likely to require significant assistance from Counsel. Becaue of the serious consequences which the matter in issue may have for you, and for our clients, it is appropriate that such assistance is given at a senior level. There is no intention to create an inequality of arms, nor to obtain any unfair advantage. Indeed, the position is precisely the opposite. We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

Hope Judge T reads this forum. Spending32 grand to make sure that Tony is treated fairly. You could not make it up.

by aiyoyo 01.02.13 16:33

bobbin wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

"Your self-represented status means that the Court is likely to require significant assistance from Counsel. . .We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

How is the leading Counsel representing them is going to be of help to TB?
Wouldn't that be considered conflict of interest?

It would be interesting to watch Court's reaction to their brazenness.

Their brazenness for sure, but who are the "ALL" parties ?
Surely they are only talking about McCanns and Bennet, therefore, at best to BOTH PARTIES.
Are they widening it to include ANOTHER PARTY ?
Perhaps their wording is not so sloppy after all, perhaps they really do intend to include for the judge here, that their choice of 'silk' will be required to help Mr. Justice Tugendhat to be more efficient and fair in conducting the case.

Perhaps the point that is missed here is that the Court did not seek their help, never mind the other side is not represented.

Surely the Court does not need Mr's Silken represented the Plaintiffs to explain the defendant's position if their preposterous suggestion is to be believed. If they think the Court is going to be fooled that Mrs Silken paid by Mccanns is hired for the express purpose of helping Court understand the unrepresented Defendant's position, then they are insinuated anarchy in Court and Court is bankrupt of competency. That bleeding check is not going to sit well with Court.

by jay2001 01.02.13 16:49

What a generous offer, so heart warming. Have they seen the light after posting a quote by the Dalai Lama on one of their website/facebook yesterday. The gist of which is if you can't help someone don't hurt them. We know the abductor is forgiven so why the vicious, vindictive vendetta against TB and Dr A?

If Tony loses and is bankrupted and/or imprisoned what happens about the libel trial? Will it go ahead or will tm change their minds as they've done with Dr A? Sadly I doubt the UK media will report on this and it's only us in forumland who know far more than the papers and news tell us. At least twitter is getting the message out there, will that be the next cause for tm & Co?

by C.Edwards 01.02.13 16:49

Judges ask counsel for advice, legal references and case citation references (i.e. which page in the book is that...?)

Counsel has to be honest in answering any questions even if it harms the argument for "their" side.

It is an entirely valid legal argument that Carter Ruck are putting forward, even if it doesn't look that way at face value.

This is a committal hearing, there is nothing to settle. I believe the McCanns could withdraw their application for contempt of court but I doubt that Tony would insist on appearing in court to argue his case in that event.

As to the case being thrown out of court:

STRIKING OUT

5. The court may, on application by the respondent or on its own initiative, strike out a
committal application if it appears to the court:
(1) that the committal application and the evidence served in support of it disclose no reasonable
ground for alleging that the respondent is guilty of a contempt of court;
(2) that the committal application is an abuse of the court’s process or, if made in existing
proceedings, is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of those proceedings; or
(3) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.
(CPR Part 3 contains general powers for the management by the court)

and

8. A committal application may not be discontinued without the permission of the court.

I'm sure that I will be accused of spreading doom and gloom again, but I'm just explaining how these sorts of proceedings work for those (there appear to be many) who don't know.

Whilst researching this, I found an interesting (to me) point of law on the committal proceedings that I didn't know was there. I'm sure Tony "already knows this" winkwink

but just in case there are others that don't:

If you consider the allegations are not true you must tell the court why. If it is established that
they are true, you must tell the court of any good reason why they do not amount to a
contempt of court, or, if they do, why you should not be punished

What is interesting in this is that it clearly demonstrates an opportunity for Tony to "have his say" regardless of whether he is found to be in contempt or not. I didn't realise that this opportunity existed at a committal hearing. Whether or not he is able to demonstrate his case to a sufficient level of proof or not, he will at least be able to raise his arguments he's mentioned on here. It is possible - maybe even probable - that, should Tony be able to make a good enough representation, the judge (if not Tugendhat) will agree with Tugendhat's words that the proper way to resolve this is a full libel trial and this *may* help explain just why the McCanns side appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will in all probability be going all out to try and dissuade the judge from going anywhere near this course of action. At the very least I would expect any judge to ask the question along the lines of, "why are you so determined to nail this particular person...?"

by **PeterMac** 01.02.13 17:02

C.Edwards wrote:Judges ask counsel for advice, legal references and case citation references (i.e. which page in the book is that...?)
Counsel has to be honest in answering any questions even if it harms the argument for "their" side.
It is an entirely valid legal argument that Carter Ruck are putting forward, even if it doesn't look that way at face value.

Quite, but the junior counsel who has worked on the case for the past 3 years could do that perfectly well.
The silk has been paid for one day to con this brief, plus two court days.

by russiandoll 01.02.13 17:13

all these last minute shenanigans

Amaral case postponed while negotiations take place
last minute delivery of papers to TB
last minute add on of a silk

they clearly are pulling out all the stops to avoid a libel trial in both countries

all in the new year, just when SY make a "routine " trip to Portugal.

anyone care to try joining the dots..?

what was said.... any more than 3 and it isn't coincidence ?

by Monty Heck 01.02.13 17:41

C.Edwards Today at 4:49 pm

"It is possible - maybe even probable - that, should Tony be able to make a good enough representation, the judge (if not Tugendhat) will agree with Tugendhat's words that the proper way to resolve this is a full libel trial and this *may* help explain just why the McCanns side appear to be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. They will in all probability be going all out to try and dissuade the judge from going anywhere near this course of action. At the very least I would expect any judge to ask the question along the lines of, "why are you so determined to nail this particular person...?""

This may indeed go some way to explain the extent of the legal might employed against Mr Bennett. The latest CR letter is quite explicit on how grave these proceedings are for their clients as well as TB and a judgement that there will be a hearing to decide whether any libel has in fact occurred would be a serious consequence indeed for the McCs. The purpose of the additional QC may therefore be to ensure that possibility is minimised as far as is humanly possible. Nobody racks up an additional £32 in legal costs to be fairer to their opponent and all that is being done is making "inequality of arms" even more so. It would be interesting to hear the answer if the judge did ask the above question but perhaps the team would need an adjournment to take clients' advice before answering.

by Inspectorfrost 01.02.13 19:16

If they were concerned about fairness, as all good legal practitioners *should* be, as soon as they open their eyes in the morning to when they shut them at night, what took them so long to announce this?

by Guest 01.02.13 19:30

Mirage wrote:We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

I wonder if the judge will take kindly to this high-handedness. This should be read out in court.

Very, very good thinking!

by Guest 01.02.13 19:32

PeterMac wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

"Your self-represented status means that the Court is likely to require significant assistance from Counsel. . .We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"
I wonder if His Honour Mr Justice Tugendhat feels that he needs significant assistance, and that without it he is likely to conduct the proceedings in an inefficient and unfair manner ?

Love you!

by Guest 01.02.13 19:34

jd wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

"Your self-represented status means that the Court is likely to require significant assistance from Counsel. Becaue of the serious consequences which the matter in issue may have for you, and for our clients, it is appropriate that such assistance is given at a senior level. There is no intention to create an inequality of arms, nor to obtain any unfair advantage. Indeed, the position is precisely the opposite. We consider that the Hearing is likely to be more efficiently and fairly conducted, to all parties, if Leading Counsel is present"

What an absolute crock of bull..Carter Ruck should take heed of what their clients posted on their FB page yesterday

Tsk tsk jd; apparently the McCs only intend to help TB. We simple earthlings only fail to understand that.
In fact, we should applaud them fot their kindness, as to a wayward child. Kapish?

by Guest 01.02.13 19:38

aquila wrote:I'm not sure where to post this so please move it to the right topic mods.

The McCann's will not be attending the hearing. Isn't it the twins' birthday on one of the dates of the hearing? Will we see a lovely message somewhere or other about the twins on the McCann stuff/website thingies that day?

Didn't the McCann's or their lawyers organise the hearing for these dates?

You Dingbat, they are out there, turning stones...

by Guest 01.02.13 19:43

PeterMac wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Perhaps their wording is not so sloppy after all, perhaps they really do intend to include for the judge here, that their choice of 'silk' will be required to help Mr. Justice Tugendhat to be more efficient and fair in conducting the case.
But does that no imply, very clearly and on the record, that they think he otherwise would not be.

Yes.

So you bring in someone from his old chambers.

Message to Judge Deed: 'watch your step, friend, we know where you come from'.

Concusion: so now someone sees fit to even intimidate the Court. The stakes must be momentous.
And that, with the whole world watching!

by Guest 01.02.13 19:49

aiyoyo wrote:
sombrero wrote:Sounds like an acceptance that three other lawyers are not good enough to deal with this case.

I wonder if there will be a late settlement offer by the Claimant?

I agree that this case is very serious for the defendant but in my view its more serious for the Claimant.

Wont be surprised this will pan out parallel to their case vs Amaral ie the Claimant caving in and offering to settle on TB's terms.

The only difference I fear in this case is that someone other than mccanns might be driving all these, and whoever that be may have targeted TB for personal reason, and money is no objection to ensure the complete destruction of TB, provided there is no IF.
If the stay of execution of the libel is lifted and ordered to go ahead then there's no way the Mccanns will want to be examined and their fairy tale coming under close scrutiny in Court under oath while potentially dragging others into their mud.

Hence the quantity and quality (cost wise) of Barristers and Lawyers to sway Judge away from ordering the execution of the libel.

Their under-estimation of the Judge may be their undoing.

Carter-Ruck explain why they've appointed Adrienne Page Q.C. to beef up their legal firepower - Page 2 160807

by Guest 01.02.13 19:51

ShuBob wrote:Having read TB's post I was going to say "I've heard it all now" but I'm sure there's more to come!

What are these people? IMO, the only people who can excuse this behaviour are those who know the couple indeed have questions to answer and have decided to back them come what may in the cover up.

No dear, these supporters are the ones who themselves would go down the drain if the McCs screwed up.

Log in for more topics