The Royal Forums Coat of Arms


Join The Royal Forums Today
Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
  #1681  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:36 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Settlement requires some form of agreement between the parties. Meghan could certainly discontinue her claim but I would be interested in knowing what that involves in the UK. Here in Queensland, once a Defence has been entered, the Claim can only be withdrawn with the leave of the Court or the consent of the Defendant (i.e. Associated Press).

If the Defendant agrees to the discontinuance they can do so on any terms they wish but the Plaintiff (i.e. Meghan) is liable for costs, it's just that the Defendant can agree to waive them. If they do so with the leave of the Court, then the Judge can make any orders s/he thinks appropriate regarding costs.

So even if Meghan wants to withdraw her claim (and if the process in the UK is the same as it is here) she may not be able to do so without paying AP a hefty sum in costs if AP decides to play hardball.
Criminal is different but for a civil case

Right to discontinue claim
38.2

(1) A claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim at any time.

(2) However –

(a) a claimant must obtain the permission of the court if he wishes to discontinue all or part of a claim in relation to which –

(i) the court has granted an interim injunction(GL); or

(ii) any party has given an undertaking to the court;

(b) where the claimant has received an interim payment in relation to a claim (whether voluntarily or pursuant to an order under Part 25), he may discontinue that claim only if –

(i) the defendant who made the interim payment consents in writing; or

(ii) the court gives permission;

(c) where there is more than one claimant, a claimant may not discontinue unless –

(i) every other claimant consents in writing; or

(ii) the court gives permission.

(3) Where there is more than one defendant, the claimant may discontinue all or part of a claim against all or any of the defendants.

Liability for costs
38.6

(1) Unless the court orders otherwise, a claimant who discontinues is liable for the costs which a defendant against whom the claimant discontinues incurred on or before the date on which notice of discontinuance was served on the defendant.

(2) If proceedings are only partly discontinued –

(a) the claimant is liable under paragraph (1) for costs relating only to the part of the proceedings which he is discontinuing; and

(b) unless the court orders otherwise, the costs which the claimant is liable to pay must not be assessed until the conclusion of the rest of the proceedings.

(3) This rule does not apply to claims allocated to the small claims track.

(Rule 44.9 provides for the basis of assessment where the right to costs arises on discontinuance and contains provisions about when a costs order is deemed to have been made and applying for an order under section 194(3) of the Legal Services Act 2007)

So basically as it stands she can wothdraw.
__________________

  #1682  
Old 08-05-2020, 07:58 PM
Somebody's Avatar
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: Somewhere, Suriname
Posts: 6,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by VictoriaB View Post
Settlement requires some form of agreement between the parties. Meghan could certainly discontinue her claim but I would be interested in knowing what that involves in the UK. Here in Queensland, once a Defence has been entered, the Claim can only be withdrawn with the leave of the Court or the consent of the Defendant (i.e. Associated Press).

If the Defendant agrees to the discontinuance they can do so on any terms they wish but the Plaintiff (i.e. Meghan) is liable for costs, it's just that the Defendant can agree to waive them. If they do so with the leave of the Court, then the Judge can make any orders s/he thinks appropriate regarding costs.

So even if Meghan wants to withdraw her claim (and if the process in the UK is the same as it is here) she may not be able to do so without paying AP a hefty sum in costs if AP decides to play hardball.
That makes sense. She was the one who started the case, so if she decides to withdraw; why would the defendant not be compensated for the costs they needlessly made? Only for her to find out that she didn't want to pursue the case any further.
__________________

  #1683  
Old 08-05-2020, 09:42 PM
Eskimo's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Dallas, United States
Posts: 573
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
So basically as it stands she can wothdraw.
She can at any time. She will just have to pay a 7 figure sums to the MoS for their legal costs
  #1684  
Old 08-05-2020, 10:25 PM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 1,893
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
No he very clearly wrapped both on the knuckles for using the court case to bring up other issues and being interested in playing this out in the court of public opinion.

Bit of a slap for Meghan. But needed to be said. She has been hyperbolic and went over the top. The mediansre always hyperbolic and go over the top.
The judge is clearly exasperated with both sides. There are a couple of places in the ruling where he could have summed his thoughts up nicely just by drawing this: 🙄 😠

The poor man must sit there dissecting People magazine articles, reading pages upon pages of legalese about secret letters and secret friends, and wonder what he’s done to deserve this.
  #1685  
Old 08-06-2020, 03:16 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by camelot23ca View Post
The judge is clearly exasperated with both sides. There are a couple of places in the ruling where he could have summed his thoughts up nicely just by drawing this: �� ��

The poor man must sit there dissecting People magazine articles, reading pages upon pages of legalese about secret letters and secret friends, and wonder what he’s done to deserve this.
He himself was a media barrister. It isn't the first time at the rodeo. That the media are behaving like this is not a a surprise. He has defended them himself in the past. That Meghan’s extent is so ingrained has actually shocked me a bit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eskimo View Post
She can at any time. She will just have to pay a 7 figure sums to the MoS for their legal costs
She may have to anyway.
  #1686  
Old 08-06-2020, 06:07 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,944
It's most definitely not a surprise that the DM went directly from the court room and put various confidential papers directly on their website, nor is them waiting for the most advantageous time to file documents so they can make the morning papers. They have zero reputation to lose, all this has happened before and will happen again.

Meghan most definitely does have a reputation to lose and to be called out for leaking supposedly confidential documents to her pet journalists within minutes of court whilst being the claimant in a privacy and copyright case is ironic. And also being told bluntly by the judge that her own statement "contained little that was true" is interesting.
  #1687  
Old 08-06-2020, 07:09 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
It's most definitely not a surprise that the DM went directly from the court room and put various confidential papers directly on their website is not a surprise, nor is them waiting for the most advantageous time to file documents so they can make the morning papers. They have zero reputation to lose, all this has happened before and will happen again.

Meghan most definitely does have a reputation to lose and to be called out for leaking supposedly confidential documents to her pet journalists within minutes of court whilst being the claimant in a privacy and copyright case is ironic. And also being told bluntly by the judge that her own statement "contained little that was true" is interesting.
Was there evidence Meghan was the one who leaked filing the case? There are plenty of people working at a courthouse who could have leaked it. As far as I know the DM only said they didnt leak it.
  #1688  
Old 08-06-2020, 07:18 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
Was there evidence Meghan was the one who leaked filing the case? There are plenty of people working at a courthouse who could have leaked it. As far as I know the DM only said they didnt leak
Sure, courthouse workers leak. You can't claim someones innocence by throwing aspirations on people who, as a part of their career, sign non disclosures. I am a little tired of the 'it is all someone else's fault,' narrative. Meghan is not the centre of the people who work at the high courts world. Particularly when they are type who have never, in their lives, even bought a tabloid. And value their careers and think it is value work.

She leaked it. Or her people did. If you hear hooves.
  #1689  
Old 08-06-2020, 08:30 AM
Royal Highness
 
Join Date: Dec 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 1,944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
Was there evidence Meghan was the one who leaked filing the case? There are plenty of people working at a courthouse who could have leaked it. As far as I know the DM only said they didnt leak it.
This whole section says that the judge agrees with the DM's solicitor that Meghan or one of her PR team/solicitors directly gave sympathetic journalists her statements. No one is trying to suggest clerks or administrators leaked it:

Quote:
27. The defendant suggests that the claimant’s side briefed the press in relation to this application, and the evidence bears this out. The record shows that the application notice and supporting witness statements were all submitted for filing at 8:06am and filed at 8.32am. The evidence of Mr Mathieson is that they were served on the defendant at 8:30am and that by 8:45am, within 15 minutes of receiving the application, he received a call from a representative of Sky News asking if he had a comment to make about it. The defendant’s side had not made the application public. At 9:30am, a copy of the title page of the claimant’s witness statement was posted on the Twitter feed of someone called Omid Scobie, accompanied by a quotation attributed to “a close source”, criticising the Mail for wishing to “target five innocent women through the pages of its newspapers and its website”. Mr Scobie then tweeted the passage from the witness statement that I have quoted above. The inference invited is that he had been provided with a copy by representatives of the claimant. This seems very likely. From 10:02 the national media were reporting at length on the content of the claimant’s witness statement. The Sun reported under the headline “GAME PLAYING. Meghan Markle says ‘I’m not on trial’ as she tried to ban ‘vicious’ naming of pals who gave interview to support her”. There was much in similar vein, in (among other outlets) Sky News, The Times, The Express online, The Daily Telegraph. Again, no detailed analysis has been conducted but it seems improbable that all this reporting was a product of searches of the CE File system.
None of this is particularly surprising but it is notable that Meghan and her team got slapped down so hard for it. And it goes against her claim of privacy and copyright being important. Both sides are more interested in playing this out in the media and making it a trial about Meghan's entire time in the UK.

And since Omid Scobie was named and the judge agreed he was deliberately leaked to within minutes of the statement being filed, it also fans the flames on Finding Freedom and those extremely intimate thoughts and details he wrote about.
  #1690  
Old 08-06-2020, 09:02 AM
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: St Thomas, U.S. Minor Outlying Islands
Posts: 4,173
Quote:
Originally Posted by Heavs View Post
And also being told bluntly by the judge that her own statement "contained little that was true" is interesting.
My reading of the judge's comment on the claimant's witness statement is that he was not deeming it to contain untrue factual allegations, but that he contended it contained few "factual [allegations...] that needed to be proven" and consisted in the main of "argument, comment, and criticism of the defendant". I think, in short, the judge was claiming that the claimant's witness statement focused on the claimant's critical opinions about the defendant instead of facts pertaining to the case.

Quote:
26. [...] The other statement was from the claimant herself. It was short, containing little that was factual – or certainly little that needed to be proved, by the claimant or anyone else. Mr Rushbrooke has not seen a need to rely on the claimant’s witness statement in his written or oral submissions. The statement did contain argument, comment, and criticism of the defendant, including this (in paragraph 5):-
“Each of these women is a private citizen … and each has a basic right to privacy. …for the Mail on Sunday to expose them in the public domain for no reason other than clickbait and commercial gain is vicious and poses a threat to their emotional and mental wellbeing. The Mail on Sunday is playing a media game with real lives.”
  #1691  
Old 08-06-2020, 09:38 AM
Fem's Avatar
Fem Fem is offline
Courtier
 
Join Date: Nov 2017
Location: UK, Poland
Posts: 724
Am I the only one who feels like Meghan (and her team) thinks of this trial in very american way, and the way trials work in the UK is quite different?

It's been pretty much clear from the start that MOS will win this - even if they lose in court (which is not likely, but possible) the money they'll earn reporting on this will still make it profitable for them.
  #1692  
Old 08-06-2020, 09:42 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fem View Post
Am I the only one who feels like Meghan (and her team) thinks of this trial in very american way, and the way trials work in the UK is quite different?

It's been pretty much clear from the start that MOS will win this - even if they lose in court (which is not likely, but possible) the money they'll earn reporting on this will still make it profitable for them.
Libel trials are never about money. It's about reputation and they are rare now in the UK.

Most famous previous one would have been Max Mosley pre Levenson. In fact he started Levenson because he had an axe to grind in that the News of the World resulted in his sons relapse to addiction.

Meghan is doing what these trials are about. Problem is she is doing what she is suing for...to a media savvy judge.
  #1693  
Old 08-06-2020, 10:04 AM
Elenath's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Nuth, Netherlands
Posts: 826
Quote:
Originally Posted by poppy7 View Post
Sure, courthouse workers leak. You can't claim someones innocence by throwing aspirations on people who, as a part of their career, sign non disclosures. I am a little tired of the 'it is all someone else's fault,' narrative. Meghan is not the centre of the people who work at the high courts world. Particularly when they are type who have never, in their lives, even bought a tabloid. And value their careers and think it is value work.

She leaked it. Or her people did. If you hear hooves.
If you hear hooves.

It could be horses, or a donkey, or a poney, or even a recording of the aforementioned.

I'm not saying she didn't leak, I'm merely pointing out there are multiple ways in which this type of information could have gotten out. Hey someone at the lawoffice could have leaked it. Perhaps one of the other royal offices leaked it.

I am one of those people who have signed disclosures. I also know where I work computor monitores are stolen. People aren't perfect and money rules.

What I get from Harry and Meghan isn't "it's everybody's fault but not ours". That seems to be a narrative everyone else has. Just like the "Meghan preaches about the environment", because as far as I know she never did.

I simply really dislike the fact that a lot of people seem to blame her for everything and treat him like a mindless puppet. And I still feel like we don't know everything about these people. There have been stories for a bloody long time about the relationships within the BRF. Perhaps not all is what it seems.
  #1694  
Old 08-06-2020, 10:13 AM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
If you hear hooves.

It could be horses, or a donkey, or a poney, or even a recording of the aforementioned.

I'm not saying she didn't leak, I'm merely pointing out there are multiple ways in which this type of information could have gotten out. Hey someone at the lawoffice could have leaked it. Perhaps one of the other royal offices leaked it.

I am one of those people who have signed disclosures. I also know where I work computor monitores are stolen. People aren't perfect and money rules.

What I get from Harry and Meghan isn't "it's everybody's fault but not ours". That seems to be a narrative everyone else has. Just like the "Meghan preaches about the environment", because as far as I know she never did.

I simply really dislike the fact that a lot of people seem to blame her for everything and treat him like a mindless puppet. And I still feel like we don't know everything about these people. There have been stories for a bloody long time about the relationships within the BRF. Perhaps not all is what it seems.
I don't blame them for everything. I certainly don't believe everything. But there are two things which are, on the balance of probability, fact.

1. Scobie's book is theirs.

2. They leak to the sympathetic press.

She leaked this because soon after it was available.to the public anyway. The judge discounts that as un likely source.

You are basically saying everyone else is the leaker. Everyone else is the cause of this stuff. They aren't.

Also I would like to point out that every single member of the royal.press know the name of Friend B and that includes all court staff. And they didn't say anything. I am tired of this. All of it. When there is now legal evidence that she does what we have always thought she does. That the media do it is news to precisely no one and that is why we don't call them on it. We know they are at fault.
  #1695  
Old 08-06-2020, 11:10 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,546
The judge clearly called both sides out, not just Meghan's.

And the fact that the British tabloids are vile doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called to account for their actions or just be beyond criticism because of past behaviour.
  #1696  
Old 08-06-2020, 11:28 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: London, United Kingdom
Posts: 9,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Elenath View Post
If you hear hooves.

Just like the "Meghan preaches about the environment", because as far as I know she never did.

I simply really dislike the fact that a lot of people seem to blame her for everything and treat him like a mindless puppet. And I still feel like we don't know everything about these people. There have been stories for a bloody long time about the relationships within the BRF. Perhaps not all is what it seems.
Actually people complan about HARRY preachign about eco travel and travelling in private jets.
  #1697  
Old 08-06-2020, 11:43 AM
Majesty
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 8,546
Harry isn't involved in this particular legal action, nor are his statements about Eco travel etc anything to do with this case.
  #1698  
Old 08-06-2020, 12:31 PM
Serene Highness
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,470
Quote:
Originally Posted by Curryong View Post
The judge clearly called both sides out, not just Meghan's.

And the fact that the British tabloids are vile doesn't mean that they shouldn't be called to account for their actions or just be beyond criticism because of past behaviour.
Didn't say that. Said it wasn't news they did this.

The tabloid press, irrespective of nationality, are sensationalist and hyperbolic. We know that. It is confirmation that she is at it too.
  #1699  
Old 08-06-2020, 12:46 PM
HighGoalHighDreams's Avatar
Courtier
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Unspecified, United States
Posts: 534
People are forgetting themselves a bit. Any court employee who has access to court documents will have to log in to a system that will trace who is pulling up the documents and when. If there was any suspicion that these leaks were internal, the judge simply would have pulled a record of who accessed the records. And if you were Meghan's team and were accused of leaking but didn't, you would demand that someone check who has accessed the documents.
  #1700  
Old 08-06-2020, 01:19 PM
ACO ACO is offline
Heir Apparent
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: New York, United States
Posts: 3,797
Nothing was "confirmed" -- what the judge said to the MOS claim that it was "likely."

Personally I am sure they did give a heads up to friendly press. Interesting enough the Telegraph actually wrote their story before Omid though MOS singled him out. It was going to be public info anyways but seems that her team did alert them. But it is far from confirmed in those documents. Just pointing that out.

Both sides were trying to play this out in public. Judge rightfully pointed it out and said to stop the delay tactics.
__________________

Closed Thread


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





Popular Tags
#uae #abudhabirullingfamily 18th birthday america american archie mountbatten-windsor asia asian birth britain britannia british british royal family cadwallader camilla camilla's family camilla parker-bowles camilla parker bowles charles china china chinese ming dynasty asia asian emperor royalty qing chinese clarence house colorblindness coronation crown jewels duchess of sussex duke of sussex edward vii elizabeth ii family tree fashion and style gemstones george vi hello! highgrove history japan japanese imperial family japan history jewellery kensington palace king edward vii king juan carlos liechtenstein lili mountbatten-windsor list of rulers medical meghan markle monarchist movements monarchists mongolia norway crown princely couple politics portugal prince harry prince of wales prince of wales in jordan royal ancestry samurai solomon j solomon spanish royal family state visit st edward sussex suthida thai royal family unfinished portrait united states united states of america wales


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:24 AM.

Social Knowledge Networks

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021
Jelsoft Enterprises
×