Carter Ruck....... Pay cut!

Hope Carter Ruck are still reading this forum, Im sure they are, hard times ahead for you as well as your 2 famous friends

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/19/libel-success-fees-cut

buildersbum wrote:Hope Carter Ruck are still reading this forum, Im sure they are, hard times ahead for you as well as your 2 famous friends

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2010/jan/19/libel-success-fees-cut

Not before time, Britain has become the Capital of the World for Libel cases because of the exhorbitant awards.

Carter Ruck have made a fortune out of the Tapas 9, but I don"t think even they would have counselled the
McCanns to take on Amaral in Portugal.

Beattie,to me,the mccanns scored the biggest "own goal" ever by going to portugal.
they must be kicking themselves all the way to the bank.

I still can't work it out. Why on earth did they go.

blossom45 wrote:Beattie,to me,the mccanns scored the biggest "own goal" ever by going to portugal.
they must be kicking themselves all the way to the bank.

Blossom 45

It was Smethurst who went with Gerry to Portugal last year to see Abreu, the McCann"s Portugese Lawyer about
the injunction. Had CR been engaged it would have been one of their Lawyers. I think Smethurst"s experience is more as a Corporate Lawyer and I think Gerry would not have taken advice from anyone anyway. As you say, a
serious error of judgement.

Did they realise it was all going to be open court as it were with witnesses and information from the files. Or did they just think the judge would shuffle a few papers and then agree to keep the junction in place.

MaryB wrote:Did they realise it was all going to be open court as it were with witnesses and information from the files. Or did they just think the judge would shuffle a few papers and then agree to keep the junction in place.

The latter I suspect - Wrong

MaryB wrote:Did they realise it was all going to be open court as it were with witnesses and information from the files. Or did they just think the judge would shuffle a few papers and then agree to keep the junction in place.

I"m sure their Lawyer would have advised them of the procedure and to have engaged a Portugese PR Company
before setting foot in Portugal was probably on the advice of their Lawyer who knew the McCanns weren"t
exactly flavour of the Month in Portugal.

This is going way off topic now suggest we post on a Madeleine thread from now on.

No news.
From team McCann.
Silenzio di tomba...
Unusual for the McCanns after such an event in court.
Hmmmm....

What I really would like to know now is WHAT the hell they did tell other humans (friends for example...) regarding the PF-case and Dr. Amarals book (allegations).

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2010/01/success-fees-cap-libel-straw



Free speech campaigners gather outside Carter-Ruck's offices on October 15 2009. Photograph: Getty Images

Libel reform: the way forward
Posted by George Eaton - 20 January 2010 10:52

Straw's plan to cap success fees is a good start


The announcement by Jack Straw that the success fees charged by lawyers in "no win, no fee" cases are to be cut by 90 per cent is a welcome and long overdue development.

It was in an interview with Jason Cowley for the NS that Straw first promised to introduce a "radically reduced cap" on grossly inflated success fees. Our leader at the time called for a cap of 10 per cent on fees that at present can reach 100 per cent of costs, a demand the Justice Secretary has now matched. Straw is determined to leave office with a reputation as a reforming secretary of state and the changes are set to be made through secondary legislation in April or May.

The "no-win no-fee" system may have been introduced in 1995 with the honourable aim of providing the poorest with access to justice but it has left small publishers unable to defend themselves. Research by Oxford University shows that the cost of fighting a libel action in England is 140 times greater than the European average.

But while reducing the cost of libel cases is a necessary reform it is not a sufficient one. London has become the libel capital of the world not just because of the sums claimants can win but because they have a better chance of winning here than in any comparable democracy. Uniquely in English law, the burden of proof in the libel court lies on the defendant, meaning the odds are stacked against authors and publishers from the start. Any future government should shift the burden of proof from defendant to plaintiff as a matter of urgency.

It should also provide publishers with a stronger public-interest defence against legal action; prevent foreigners from suing in the British courts unless they can demonstrate that they have suffered real harm in this country and end cash damages in all but the most severe cases.

Labour's record on civil liberties is not a proud one but on libel it has, belatedly, rediscovered some of the radicalism that attracted so many in 1997. Straw deserves credit for the abolition of sedition and criminal libel last year and for his latest proposals. But bolder action is now needed. Britain's shameful libel laws demand nothing less.