CARTER RUCK SEND BENNETT THEIR BILL

With exquisite timing...

Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
Tony Bennett Today at 12:05 pm

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

Wonder if he still thinks it was big and clever to send those endless, mind-numbingly dull letters, that all had to be read through?

Wonder if he still thinks it was big and clever to harrass and abuse the parents of an abducted child?

Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
tiny Today at 12:48 pm

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



What? After the things he has done to the McCanns, the foul fantasies he made up in his head?

PS - is that the same tiny? If so, Hallelujah, it's a miracle!

Anthony Bennett ‏ @zampos Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
Would public enquiry be better than Scot Yard at finding truth re Maddie #McCann - sign petition (1,011 sigs so far) at www.bennettisbonkers.com

Here's a hint - when in a hole, stop digging. This invaluable advice will cost £10,000.

Oh My. That's a lot of money. Although I would probably have charged him more than that if I had been forced to read his mind numbing diatribes, which Carter Ruck were. They had to read every word.
Bennett thought he was being so clever by boring them witless, simply by depleting The Search for Madeleine Fund, by supposedly depriving Madeleine's parents of the money to search for her. What kind of monster thinks like that? No wonder Brian Kennedy stepped in.

Tough shit. Bennett will have to pay. So, if he has only got a Hundred Grand then his share of his house is not looking good. And nor is the share of his wife, since the house will have to be sold to meet the excess. But Mrs. Bennett might come out of it all with enough to buy a One Up, One Down in Bradford. Much the best place for both of them.

Sorry about that, Bradford.

QUOTE CARTER RUCK:

"...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

Sorry, can't help myself
CR keep those figures coming...

bb1 wrote: Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
tiny Today at 12:48 pm

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



What? After the things he has done to the McCanns, the foul fantasies he made up in his head?

PS - is that the same tiny? If so, Hallelujah, it's a miracle!

I find the cost extremely reasonable for almost four years of work.

bb1 wrote: Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
tiny Today at 12:48 pm

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



What? After the things he has done to the McCanns, the foul fantasies he made up in his head?

PS - is that the same tiny? If so, Hallelujah, it's a miracle!

If they are going to lose?

ETA: When is Bennett's next court date?

Soon, Lily, will have to check. He is very lucky not to be facing criminal charges - if the law in England and Wales was a bit stricter about protecting the public from anti-social behaviour, he would have been in the dock long ago.

lily wrote:

bb1 wrote: Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
tiny Today at 12:48 pm

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



What? After the things he has done to the McCanns, the foul fantasies he made up in his head?

PS - is that the same tiny? If so, Hallelujah, it's a miracle!

If they are going to lose?

ETA: When is Bennett's next court date?

9th and 10th May, Lily

The following link provides some background which may be helpful. It seems that CR will be using a conditional fee agreement.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Funding.asp

Costs are a difficulat area, and the closest parallel I can find are the civil procedure / practice direction 51d, which deals with the duties of both parties to disclose likely costs.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_part51d

On this basis, Carter Ruck are simply sticking to the rules and making sure that the defendant and the court are aware of costs.

On this basis, Carter Ruck are simply sticking to the rules and making sure that the defendant and the court are aware of costs.

I think you mean,

Evil, bullying Carter Ruck are trying to intimidate poor ickle wickle Tone and stop him having his Free Speach Yuman Rite to make up nasty stories about innocent people?

Jean-Pierre.t50 wrote:The following link provides some background which may be helpful. It seems that CR will be using a conditional fee agreement.

http://www.carter-ruck.com/Media%20Law/Funding.asp

Costs are a difficulat area, and the closest parallel I can find are the civil procedure / practice direction 51d, which deals with the duties of both parties to disclose likely costs.

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/pd_part51d

On this basis, Carter Ruck are simply sticking to the rules and making sure that the defendant and the court are aware of costs.

Sounds about right, and logical. In the end The Court will decide how much Carter Ruck can charge Mr. Bennett.
So Mr. Bennett is just trying to drum up sympathy, again, by twisting the facts of Law.
Personally, I would have charged Mr. Bennett much more than £120,000 for reading his drivel, especially since his diatribes were written with malice aforethought in the process of trying to deplete The Search for Madeleine Fund. But If I know that, then no doubt The Judge will also.

Maggs wrote:

lily wrote:

bb1 wrote: Re: Carter-Ruck's costs in the case of McCanns v Bennett exceed £120,000 already
tiny Today at 12:48 pm

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



What? After the things he has done to the McCanns, the foul fantasies he made up in his head?

PS - is that the same tiny? If so, Hallelujah, it's a miracle!

If they are going to lose?

ETA: When is Bennett's next court date?

9th and 10th May, Lily

Oh Good. Thank you Bonny and Maggs. I'm sure Bennett thinks it is a bargain at twice the cost to be helping such a wonderful *cough* specimen as Gonc.....

Massive black cloud over Harlow tonight then...

You bet, rhodes. You can just picture it, Bennett musing about the low cost of Grenville's fridge magnet gift while he ponders the high cost of his gift.......all six figures of it.

it's all his own fault.

nobody forced him to stalk and harass---and I'm chuffed the figure is over and above Tone's savings, that will have irritated him no end

According to Hideho he's whinged on FB again - remind me, how old is he?

Marie, you wrote: "It is so not looking good for Tony on the 9th". I regret to say that I think your assessment is completely accurate. The newspapers are full of the abduction: D.C.I. Redwood has helped by telling us about the '195 investigative opportunities', his timeline analysis which shows Madeleine could have been taken by a stranger, and his age-progresssion photo, paid for by the taxpayer, which we are meant to look at, and simply 'phone him if we see her. I notice he didn't put up any of those 20-odd pics of 'suspects' and 'persons of interest' etc. that the McCanns have shown us over the years.

So, if I had to pick up a time to stand alone against the best paid and most experienced team of libel lawyers in the country, this would not have been it.

It is certainly going to be very, very tough - and the McCanns' lawyers, just to make sure I was as anxious as I could be before this hearing, told me on Monday that their total costs to date were around £125,000. It's easy to get up to those sorts of figures when you charge £1,000 an hour for your services.

Plus 20% VAT



Crime, time, don't do.

That advice will be £1000. + VAT.

Just a reminder of the solemn vow Bennett made, and then proceeded to drive a coach and horses through:

On 27 August 2009, Carter-Ruck sent legal letters to myself and our former Chairman Debbie Butler making the following demands:
1) the permanent suspension of our website
2) to cease selling and distributing ‘60 Reasons’
3) to cease distributing ‘10 Reasons’
4) to refrain from alleging that the McCanns knew what had really happened to Madeleine
5) to use our best endeavours to remove from the internet any posts where we had accused the McCanns of knowing what really happened to Madeleine.

On Friday 13 November I sent the following letter to Carter-Ruck:

"Further to my e-mail of yesterday’s date, and your most recent letter of 10 November, I confirm that I will accept the requirements your clients seek to impose on me. I therefore herewith sign and return the undertaking with a penal notice that you require me to sign and I will pay the £440.00 your clients require. Please find my cheque in the sum of £440.00 enclosed.

I confirm my undertaking to deliver up all hard copies in my possession or control of my book: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 60 Reasons which suggest that she was not abducted” and the leaflet: “What Really Happened to Madeleine McCann? - 10 key reasons which suggest that she was not abducted”. I did this by delivering in person a parcel containing the remaining copies of those publications in my possession to your Shoe Lane office on Saturday 31 October. All electronic versions of those documents on my computer have been deleted.

I further undertake to use my best endeavours to delete or otherwise prevent access to any previous defamatory allegations of mine concerning your clients on the four websites you mention in your letter. Further, I undertake not to repeat allegations that your clients are guilty of, or are to be suspected of, causing the death of their daughter Madeleine McCann, and/or of disposing of her body, and/or lying about what happened and/or seeking to cover up what they had done, nor to repeat any similar allegations, whether by myself or my servants or agents or otherwise howsoever.

This is being sent today by Recorded Delivery.

Yours faithfully

Tony Bennett

ENCS: 1. Signed Draft Order with Penal Notice in the name of Claimants Gerry McCann and Kate McCann and defendant Tony Bennett
2. Personal cheque in the sum of £440.00"

Why does he expect sympathy? He lied to the High Court, he broke his word time after time. It's his own fault.

He's not man enough to own up to his promises and keep his word is he?

Is he saying that Carter Ruck have spent only 125 hours reading his sheit? I don't believe that.

If he had kept his mouth shut as he gave an oath to the High Court to do then there would be no date, no damages, no possibility of prison and no adverse publicity next week.

Why cry now when he was the one deliberately spilling the milk in full knowledge of the certain consequences?

The date of the Contempt of Court Hearing is irrelevant. The fact that he has been contemptuous is what actually matters.

Greenink this hearing is exactly as you say.

We have been saying similar for months now. Bonny has frequently stated what he should do.

Maybe he should go see a shrink and be declared mentally unfit.

Bennett is deliberately trying to manipulate people into believing that this case is about Free Speech and Libel. It isn't. As we all know, it is about breaking his word to The Court.
He can if he wishes, ask to be released from his Undertaking, in which case he will again become open to Libel Charges. But I cannot see that this will release him from breaking his word to The Court as this is a separate issue.

Get 'em Gonçalo ‏ @abuseofpower Reply Retweet Favorite · Open
@reallorraine Tony Bennett faces PRISON at the Request of Kate and Gerry #McCann for asking about Maddie

I think there is something they need to get into their thick, hater heads.

Countless people have been the target of abuse and stalking on their sites - TV personalities, members of the public, people in PDL at the same time as the McCanns.

Look at that lunatic kiki's insane and baseless accusations...look at Bennett turning his cult loose on people.

They have been happily hurling vile abuse at Lorraine Kelly for years - and now they want sympathy from her? That's not the way the world works.

Not one person who has ever been targeted on Bennett's forum - or any of the hate sites - gives a flying one. They would be more than happy for the likes of him to be send to Gitmo in shackles - with his fan club keeping him company.