Costs of Bennett case

Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
ShuBob Yesterday at 3:58 pm

.Where will the money be coming from if he doesn't get legal aid? Even if both sides use barristers, one side will still come off worse.
_____________________

Much is made of the "unlimted firepower" available to the McCanns, and this is attributed to having "the fund" behind them.

This clearly implies that the fund will be available to meet costs of the case.

I thought to help Shubob, it would be useful to provide an accurate estimate of the liability of "the fund" for costs in this case.

In the event that the McCanns win the case. £0

In the event that the McCanns lose the case £0
_________

Unfortunately for Bennett, the position is rather different:

If he loses? All of his own costs and twice the McCanns costs, plus any fines or penalities

If he wins and if he manages to get the court to award his costs? - He will get his costs back.

Thanks, Jean Pierre. He's been told that repeatedly, and still insists on repeating the lie that the find Madeleine fund pays for CR.

Then he wonders why he is in trouble over libel.

The terminally supid "aiyoyo" has spoken:

"How is it I get the impression 'your on the surface seemingly constructive comments' are actually criticism loaded?

What do you think is there for TB to envy? FAIAC,TB is merely highlighting some irrefutable facts.

May I ask you -- in TB's shoes, would you be envious of some bastards or cowards using public donated money and/or other people money to take away your basic human right to freedom of expression?

BTW, in case you haven't noticed - did the mccanns put their hands in their pocket for this?Or for that matter for anything to do with their search of the mystery of their "disappeared" daughter? What do you think of them using the bulk of the Fund suing people when they claimed the Fund was for the search? Do you think Maddie can be found in the courtroom?
May I be so bold to suggest your "damn divorce (your words)" and whatever you experienced with the law in that respect cannot be used as benchmark of your legal knowledge for anything else. Your divorce (a domestic case) is not parallel with Mccanns vs Tony Bennett (a human right infringement) case. The mccanns' objective is evil and has far greater significance than your "damn divorce"!"

No dear, the fund is not being used to sue Bennett. Carter Ruck are doing this is on a conditional fee agreement (aka No win no fee). So the only one who is likely to be paying is Bennett.

This is truly Ludicrous. They really don't understand what is going on, do they. Bennett was never forced into signing anything, and no one forced him to Libel The McCanns in the first place.
Bennett is the bully here because he thought that he could force The McCanns into a Witness Box somewhere or other, and then force them into implicating themselves with his amazing powers in cross questioning them. And be sure that he would not have allowed some Barrister to do that for him.
It has backfired on him, as such things have a nasty habit of doing.

What do you think of them using the bulk of the Fund suing people when they claimed the Fund was for the search? Do you think Maddie can be found in the courtroom?

We all know yoyo is stupid - but that is taking it to new heights. Do they think regurgitating outright lies somehow helps Bennett? Do they think committing libel themselves is going to improve his situation?

It's getting ridiculous now - stunning how tenuous their grasp of reality is?

Here's another one:

Re: McCanns v Bennett: LATEST - 4 June 2012
candyfloss Today

[quote aiyoyo]

This is not a straight forward case of a breach of undertaking, which in the first place shouldn't have been imposed on TB, because it is a blanket breach of TB's human right. Only a blind person can see that.

That just about sums it up There is a whole lot worse on the www, why pick on Tony. People are discussing this case openly on hundreds of forums and blogs. Tony has only written on here and the MF, not a very big audience that's for sure. It's not as if it was on the front pages of a newspaper.......... Why are they are going after him, after all the police files and statements are available to all a first as far as I know, and it is only natural that people discuss and question them. Surely people have a right to say if they think Madeleine was not abducted, there is no proof she was, and even the media and papers are now calling it a "disappearance", the word abducted is no longer being used. Are we to believe something because someone says we have to?

Tony has only written on here and the MF,

No, he hasn't. He stalked Gerry McCann all the way to the House of Commons. His loonies tried to get the McCanns sacked. He took his hate campaign all the way to the McCann family's neighbors. He tried to get the corrupt ex-cop who attempted to frame them honored. He has attempted to meddle in an ongoing investigation. He presented the PM with his stupid petition. He stalked Clarence Mitchell at his place of work - much to Clarrie's amusement. He has abused, and invented filthy stories about - anyone who supports the McCann family.

And no, niether he - nor anyone else - has the right to accuse innocent people of heinous crimes.

That is NOT free speech - that is the language of the lynch mob, of the Nazi kicking the democrat into silence, and people have had enough of it.

As for:

why pick on Tony

That would be because he made a legally-binding agreement - TWICE - not to carry on his vendetta. He isnt being 'picked on' - he is being called to account for his repeated Contempt of Court.

It's not going to wash, is it, The Judge isn't stupid. And he will be up to speed on what has been going on. He knew how many examples that Carter Ruck had provided, and that this number wasn't necessary to prove their point, so he must have done a fair bit of reading on the subject already. But then this is why he is a Judge. His brain probably works faster than mine, and I know what it is all about.

Just so Yoyo is also clear on this, the case is NOT a Human Rights case. It is for Contempt of Court.

Also, I believe that Kate has made a considerable sum of money from her book. The proceeds of which have gone into the Fund. So, stop being a yoyo, Yoyo, and think about what you write......