Daily Mail 1 Prince Harry & Others 0

[spen666]

Just because you aren't aware of a wrongdoing being committed at the time doesn't mean you shouldn't take action once you become aware.




Not particularly. I wouldn't want the Mail to go under. The Mail probably has indemnity insurance and suing a big company is very different from suing an individual though.
It's clear that this case was ill advised but that doesn't mean the complainants were automatically greedy grafters. I doubt Elton John pursued it simply to make a quick buck.

You clearly do not understand what civil litigation is or what remedy the celebrities were seeking or the badis those remedies are calculated

Lawrence willingly chose to chase £££s. She lost, she deserves all she gets.

The newspaper group didn't have any choice but to be involved in litigation. Lawrence & others decided that.

To say its ok the paper may have insurance is mad.

Do you deserve to be burgled because you have household insurance.

Do you deserve to have your car crashed into because you have insurance?


Lawrence & the others willingly and voluntarily entered into litigation & must face the consequences of their greed

No sympathy with greedy claimants

 

[Mr Celine]

Less of a saint, more ill advised and not in a position to pay for her own independent extensive investigations. Her presence as a claimant gave the case an empathy angle that Harry, Elton John, and Liz Hurley didn't have.

If not ill-advised she may have been relying on legal advice from a lawyer with fat fingers and a broken keyboard.

 

[Rusty Nails]

Well, given she issued vourt proceeding seeking huge amounts of compensation, not any other remedy, its not hard to work out the motive.

The only "justice" a court case could deliver was £££££s.

In this sort of case 'justice' is determined by the amount claimed not a slap on the wrist by the Judge. I am sure a slap on the wrist but no monetary damages would be claimed as victory by most organisations being sued.

In your expert legal opinion is anyone claiming for damages acting out of greed, or does that just apply to large amounts being claimed from large and wealthy organisations?

Interesting jump to conclusions there. There is no evidence to suggest the lawyers did anything you suggest. If anything its harmed the reputation of those lawyers being associated with a hopeless case

Not conclusions jumped to (the clue was in the words "I wonder" and a vague reference to "these..barristers"). Of course I would never dream of accusing the esteemed and perma-tanned Barrister to the Stars David Sherborne (I note he is still just a humble junior barrister not a KC) of such a thing.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Lawrence & the others willingly and voluntarily entered into litigation & must face the consequences of their greed

Possible disappointment for @spen666.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...legal-bill-failed-sue-daily-mail-prince-harry

 

[spen666]

Possible disappointment for @spen666.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...legal-bill-failed-sue-daily-mail-prince-harry

Why is it a disappointment for me?

That ruling was made long before case came to trial & is part of usual case management process in civil litigation.

All parties knew this before trial started

 

[bobzmyunkle]

That ruling

What ruling?

 

[spen666]

What ruling?

The ruling re costs!

 

[bobzmyunkle]

The ruling re costs!

The one that says

Doreen Lawrence will not foot any of legal bill for failed attempt to sue Daily Mail​

I didn't notice that one.

 

[spen666]

The one that says

Doreen Lawrence will not foot any of legal bill for failed attempt to sue Daily Mail​

I didn't notice that one.

That is a line in paper, it is not part of any court ruling
It is also mot legally accurate.

A private agreement between the claimants is not binding on court or ANL

 

[bobzmyunkle]

That is a line in paper, it is not part of any court ruling
It is also mot legally accurate.

A private agreement between the claimants is not binding on court or ANL

Jesus wept. Look at my post that you originally replied to. I thought you were a member of the legal profession, yet you appear incapable of coherent conversation.

 

[spen666]

Jesus wept. Look at my post that you originally replied to. I thought you were a member of the legal profession, yet you appear incapable of coherent conversation.

Rather than post insults, how about debating

What i have posted is 100% legally accurate.

Whether you like it or not, it is the legal position.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

What i have posted is 100% legally accurate.

Have you considered standing in the Clacton by election?

 

[spen666]

Have you considered standing in the Clacton by election?

Still unable to debate the issue & trying to derail the matter?

 

[Rusty Nails]

Still unable to debate the issue & trying to derail the matter?

Piss-taking is a perfectly acceptable, thoroughly British, tactic of debating.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

Still unable to debate the issue & trying to derail the matter?

I posted a link to an article.
You didn't read the article.
You decided it was about 'the ruling'.
It wasn't.
End of debate.