BENNETT FOLDS TO SMETHURST - DONATION TO FIND MADELEINE FUND

This appeared on Bennett's forum at dawn:

Smethurst's libel claim settled
Tony Bennett Today at 6:59 am

Libel cases update:

SMETHURST

Update - Summary: Edward Smethurst’s claim against me has been settled on the following agreed terms:

a) I will pay the sum of £2,500 agreed damages to Mr Smethurst, without any formal admission of liability. Mr Smethurst has said via Carter-Ruck that he will pay this sum into the Find Madeleine Fund
b) I will in addition pay Mr Smethurst’s reasonable legal costs to date, to be assessed by the court if not agreed between me and him (see below)
c) Carter-Ruck will draw up an undertaking for me to sign which will cover the contents of anything that I may or may not publish about him in the future; the terms of that undertaking to be agreed between us.

The hearing yesterday (7 December):

Carter-Ruck had four people representing them at yesterday’s hearing, which was in Room E117, the chambers of Master Victoria McCloud. They were:

(i) Jacob Dean, barrister
(ii) Isabel Hudson, Senior Partner of Carter-Ruck

(iii) Two female assistants.

Mr Smethurst’s claim, issued by the court on 9 August 2011, was originally for £100,000 damages.

This was primarily a costs management hearing in which Carter-Ruck were asking the Master to approve their ‘costs budget’. This set out, in a series of complex tables, how they had calculated their costs to date (£28,390) and their likely future costs (£143,086.50), which totalled £171, 476.50.

Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget. The end result was that Carter-Ruck’s costs budget schedule, most unusually, was rejected by the Master, who ordered Carter-Ruck at their own expense to submit another one. Carter-Ruck were given leave to appeal if they wished.

The hearing opened with Jacob Dean, for Mr Smethurst, being able to make a half-hour opening summary of the case. In this address, he set out that the following legal issues to be settled in the case:

a) whether any or all of the comments I made about Mr Smethurst were justified (strictly true)
b) whether, if not justified, they were ‘fair comment’
c) what was the actual meaning of some of the words I used
d) whether I had acted promptly to remove any offending words.

He also claimed that Mr Smethurst had no control on Facebook over who became his friends on his Facebook page. That meant that I would have to have proved to the court that certain named friends of his were there as a matter of his conscious decision. Jacob Dean claimed that anyone could become Mr Smethurst’s ‘Facebook Friend’.

At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial. If the case had proceeded, there would have been a 1-day summary trial before a judge. If at that hearing the judge thought that I had an arguable case, the matter would have been set down for a 3-day trial at which all the legal arguments mentioned above would have been considered.

The Master was especially interested in the following aspects of the matter:

a) whether or not I had promptly removed any offending material
b) whether or not Mr Smethurst had followed the Pre-Action Protocol on Defamation, which requires libel claimants to give potential defendants an opportunity to remove any allegedly libellous publications. The Protocol sets out quite clearly that court action should be ‘a last resort’
c) whether or not Mr Smethurst should have issued proceedings on 9 August when I had met all the demands of Carter-Ruck’s initial two letters of 4 August
d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
e) whether the steps taken in the proceedings to date by Carter-Ruck were proportionate, having regard in particular to my prompt removal of any offending material.

At the conclusion of the case, the Master said that she was “fully seized of all the issues relating to the need for claimants to follow the pre-Action Protocol and as to proportionality”.

In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.

Once a libel claim has been issued, and bearing in mind the gross inequality of resources in this case, tough choices have to be made. My choice was to settle on the most favourable terms that I could agree.

=====================================

So, where are the screenshots of all this filth? Surely producing them would have ended the whole debate?

Oh, let me take a guess.

THEY NEVER EXISTED TO BEGIN WITH

Bennett said it = there is at least one LIE in it. Something dodgy about the alleged messages allegedly left by friends of friends, was there? Maybe ips not quite what they should be?

So much for Bennett's lurid allegations - push came to shove, he bottled out.

Just for Bennett -

d) whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request


1. Bennett seems to have forgotten that his disgusting inventions were spread all over the internet by that KaOssis/TDH freak, and its ilk.

2. What happened to all that crowing about his forum being the biggest site on the net, or something? Is that an admission that half his members are Muratfan, and the remainder are socks and clones of members of 'pro' sites and there are actually only a couple of hundred members, as is reflected in the post rate?

Discussion about Carter-Ruck’s costs bill took up most of the 1¾ hour hearing. The Master queried the very high amount of costs in Carter-Ruck’s budget.

Did he query Kirwins costs for an hours work, what was it? £500. Then he tried to get more out of Butler by lying and saying they had to make another payment.

I find it hilarious he has actually donated to the fund

Wonderful, isn't it, Maggs - I wonder if it came out of his pocket or Hounderfunds?

This is interesting:

At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial.


That should have been his cue to produce screenshots of the filth he and the other Hounders had discussed with such glee.

So, why didn't he? Can we guess the answer?

bb1 wrote:Wonderful, isn't it, Maggs - I wonder if it came out of his pocket or Hounderfunds?

This is interesting:

At the hearingk the barrister produced and served on me a new application, running to several hundred more pages, with exhibits, for ‘Summary Disposal’ of the case. The application contended that I had no arguable case and that the case should be disposed of at a 1-day hearing without the matter ever going to trial.


That should have been his cue to produce screenshots of the filth he and the other Hounders had discussed with such glee.

So, why didn't he? Can we guess the answer?

I bet mommy paid, knowingly or not

In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court.

He's hoping. I'm sure he will be adding to the fund again.
It is good of him though

Well thats two down and two to go.
Now us well wishers need to be on our toes Bonny

In terms, this may well mean that a large part of Mr Smethurst’s costs claim may be disallowed by the court

Even if it is reduced by 50%, that is still EIGHTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS FOURTEEN THOUSAND POUNDS.

And for what? To stalk total strangers, to make up stories about total strangers, to try to intimidate the families of total strangers.

I do hope Bennett isn't expecting sympathy. Oh, and didn't B$own pick a good time to ally herself to the Hounders

Edited because I was looking at the wrong figures

Now that sounds a bit more like it in hitting Bennett's pocket. I shall hope that it's a bit more than 50%.
But if Mummy pays it will hit his ultimate inheritance.

It's funny watching them all try to teach Carter Ruck about law:

e: LATEST on the 3 libel actions - alleged contempt of court x 1, and alleged libels x 2
PeterMac Today at 1:53 pm

So Jacob Dean, a Barrister, has misled the judge in a vitally important material particular. Possibly though pure ignorance, since barristers simply present the case a solicitor has prepared.
So Carter-Ruck have prepared a case which contains a significant error of fact. An error crucial to the entire case. They may also have done this through pure ignorance, since they may have simply taken their instructions from their client, but their role is to also to research.
In which case Smethurst has presented a significant error of fact, through the medium of solicitor and Barrister. In his case, since he is the one who had the Facebook page, it cannot be ignorance.
He knows perfectly well, his solicitor should have found out, and his barrister ought to have been advised, that what they were telling the judge was wrong.
I hope this matter, which is after all the central plank of Smethurst's case against TB, is brought to the attention of the judge, in open court, with all present - Barrister, Solicitor, legal supporters and researchers - to be examined under oath as to why they made this statement to the detriment of TB.

================

So, why didn't Bennett produce the screenshots as proof? I am sure FB would have happily passed on the ips of these filthy people....so why did Bennett fold?

Me, I think it's something to do with this:

The application contended that I had no arguable case

Bennett didn't even attempt to defend the disgusting allegations he had been making; wonder why that would be?

whether Mr Smethurst’s claim for £100,000 damages was ‘proportional’: i.e. whether such a large claim was reasonable in respect of comments made on a small internet forum and which were removed on request
What country am I sitting in?
What country is the Taz devil sitting in?
Proving that Bennett's libel spread around the world.
I think I'll drop Carter and Ruck a note along with the screenshots I have of the libel.

And Bennett's filthy imaginings were splattered all over the Bruntyblog and twitter, too...

Don't forget France. I know for a fact that at least couple of of Haters live in France, and one of them is French.
Then there's Spain and Germany and Holland. Still, never mind. It's The Costs that will crease Bennett.

So back to watching the bugger for more Libel. Who will be next I wonder?

So, why didn't Bennett produce the screenshots as proof? I am sure FB would have happily passed on the ips of these filthy people....so why did Bennett fold?

Me, I think it's something to do with this:

The application contended that I had no arguable case

Bennett didn't even attempt to defend the disgusting allegations he had been making; wonder why that would be?

If you recall, Bennett even stated in a letter to CR (where he was defending his actions) that the FB comments were too depraved to state in that letter. Think that gave the game away right there.

CR legally needed to see what he was referring to, and know the identity of that person(s) as it would have been negligent for them not to know.

Oh dear. Gotcha.

Of course they knew what they were talking about, Lily. They don't go to Court on any old say so. And besides, when does anyone get hung, drawn and quartered for what friends of friends might or might not have said?

Afraid not, Pedro - I think it was a bit of a wind-up to see what Bennett had to say for himself.

Bennett has surfaced to comment - it is in assorted colors on his site:


A couple of points
Tony Bennett Today at 5:08 pm

PeterMac wrote:
So Jacob Dean, a Barrister, has misled the judge in a vitally important material particular. Possibly though pure ignorance, since barristers simply present the case a solicitor has prepared.
So Carter-Ruck have prepared a case which contains a significant error of fact. An error crucial to the entire case. They may also have done this through pure ignorance, since they may have simply taken their instructions from their client, but their role is to also to research.
In which case Smethurst has presented a significant error of fact, through the medium of solicitor and Barrister. In his case, since he is the one who had the Facebook page, it cannot be ignorance.
He knows perfectly well, his solicitor should have found out, and his barrister ought to have been advised, that what they were telling the judge was wrong.
I hope this matter, which is after all the central plank of Smethurst's case against TB, is brought to the attention of the judge, in open court, with all present - Barrister, Solicitor, legal supporters and researchers - to be examined under oath as to why they made this statement to the detriment of TB.

I hesitate to respond, for obvious reasons, and have no wish to get sucked in to any criticism of Jacob Dean - least of all Carter-Ruck - but this is how the conversation in court went yesterday:

++++

The judge said: "I don't really understand Facebook, is it the case that depending on the settings, some people can become your friends without you knowing?"

Jacob Dean (Smethurst's barrister): "That is our understanding, yes".

I piped up: "The position is that you have to make a conscious decision whether to accept or ignore a friend request".

The judge said: "Well it seems to be disputed, in which case Mr Bennett you will need to provide relevant evidence from Facebook to prove your assertion".

++++

I must however also place on the written record here that throughout the correspondence and in the libel claim and his subsequent statement of claim, Mr Smethurst made no admissions as to knowing either Ben Murphy, or James Halley, or Greg Bailey. Please forgive me if I do not intervene on this thread again - Tony Bennett

NOTE FROM ADMIN: Carter-Ruck are carrying on with their search for libel on this forum, apparently leaving no stone unturned as they continue searching. Today they spent 32 minutes and 17 seconds on this forum. That is their 73rd visit here in the past 6 months, from Carter-Ruck's I.P. address:**** (in the name of Peter Carter-Ruck). Please take heed of Tony Bennett's reminder that Edward Smethurst has made no admission as to knowing Ben Murphy, James Halley or Greg Bailey. Please exercise care and stick to the facts - thank you all.

Well, good for Carter Ruck, as they are carrying on repeating unfounded, vile allegations about people. Bennett's admin there; he needn't be surprised if he hears more about it.

Oh, and why didn't he produce screenshots as proof?

*removed as Bennett's forum has breached Data Protection Act in posting it*

The judge said: "Well it seems to be disputed, in which case Mr Bennett you will need to provide relevant evidence from Facebook to prove your assertion".

I guess that means screen shots?

Not so daft after all, is she. The Judge that is.

The hounders are all making blustery noises about 'Tony' being able to produce proof.

Really?

SO, WHY DIDN'T HE DO THAT YESTERDAY, THEN?

I would have thought that even people as dim as them would have been able to work that one out...

Ah, so he has saved the Ace up his sleeve for the next court appearance?

bb1 wrote:The hounders are all making blustery noises about 'Tony' being able to produce proof.

Really?

SO, WHY DIDN'T HE DO THAT YESTERDAY, THEN?

I would have thought that even people as dim as them would have been able to work that one out...

If, as Bennett says, you have to invite a friend to your facebook; does it mean the alleged screen-shots were taken by someone posing as Mr. Smethurst's friend?

Tony, it depends on the settings you choose as you can go from anyone can view your pages to friends only. Only friends can comment on your pages.

lily wrote:Tony, it depends on the settings you choose as you can go from anyone can view your pages to friends only. Only friends can comment on your pages.

Why, did no one else comment before Bennett's cult if, everyone could view it?

That certainly is most strange, Tony. Especially considering the alleged content.........