Vegas & The Aftermath - Diary

[Karabiner]

The crux of this trial is Rooney needing to actually prove Rebekah's foul-play even though I doubt many think she is innocent at this point.

So even if the judge awards her the insulting token £1 in damages the Rooneys will still have to pay the £2M combined legal costs.

[Karabiner]

One thing that struck me as particularly odd was Rebekah's agent being "too ill" to give evidence.

She was the one who gave all these stories to the press and rather conveniently "lost" her phone in the North Sea.

Why hasn't Colleen's legal team subpoenaed this lady or is that not permissable in this type of case?

[tikay]

One thing that struck me as particularly odd was Rebekah's agent being "too ill" to give evidence.

She was the one who gave all these stories to the press and rather conveniently "lost" her phone in the North Sea.

Why hasn't Colleen's legal team subpoenaed this lady or is that not permissable in this type of case?

Very odd & as it happens, convenient.

I obviously have no idea what the legal position is, but this is the backstory;



"In written arguments, Mr Tomlinson said: ‘The claimant served a witness statement of Caroline Watt with the intention of calling Ms Watt to give oral evidence at the trial.

‘The claimant’s solicitors were, however, aware that Ms Watt was in a fragile state and had been expressing serious concerns about giving evidence.’

He added that a consultant forensic psychiatrist produced a report which concluded Watt is not fit to provide oral evidence at the High Court trial.

‘In these circumstances, it is clear that Ms Watt cannot be called to give evidence,’ he concluded.


 

[tikay]

The crux of this trial is Rooney needing to actually prove Rebekah's foul-play even though I doubt many think she is innocent at this point.

So even if the judge awards her the insulting token £1 in damages the Rooneys will still have to pay the £2M combined legal costs.

Really? Wow.

 

[Karabiner]

The crux of this trial is Rooney needing to actually prove Rebekah's foul-play even though I doubt many think she is innocent at this point.

So even if the judge awards her the insulting token £1 in damages the Rooneys will still have to pay the £2M combined legal costs.

Really? Wow.

 

I'm not 100% certain but I believe that's how it works.

[Tal]

The crux of this trial is Rooney needing to actually prove Rebekah's foul-play even though I doubt many think she is innocent at this point.

So even if the judge awards her the insulting token £1 in damages the Rooneys will still have to pay the £2M combined legal costs.

Really? Wow.

 

I'm not 100% certain but I believe that's how it works.

Not necessarily. Will be a separate decision. There's a general principle that the loser pays, but who the loser is in a case where someone wanted a lot of money and got £1 isn't cut and dry.

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/05/30/costs-at-the-end-of-the-case-who-is-the-real-winner-and-more-about-failing-to-prove-damages/

Also, the amount you get isn't always 100%, as there's an assessment process.

[RED-DOG]

I love law. I wish our big cases were televised.

[4KSuited]

Try watching the Pitt vs Heard trial - most of it’s shown live on YouTube. It can be very interesting, but it can also be infuriating - particularly regarding the manner in which the questions are delivered by the lawyers. Best watched as edited highlights....

[Simon Galloway]

30th June you say?  If you are lining Wooly Jumper's pockets, might well see you in the Clubhouse for a latte and a pastry!

[Karabiner]

The crux of this trial is Rooney needing to actually prove Rebekah's foul-play even though I doubt many think she is innocent at this point.

So even if the judge awards her the insulting token £1 in damages the Rooneys will still have to pay the £2M combined legal costs.

Really? Wow.

 

I'm not 100% certain but I believe that's how it works.

Not necessarily. Will be a separate decision. There's a general principle that the loser pays, but who the loser is in a case where someone wanted a lot of money and got £1 isn't cut and dry.

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/05/30/costs-at-the-end-of-the-case-who-is-the-real-winner-and-more-about-failing-to-prove-damages/

Also, the amount you get isn't always 100%, as there's an assessment process.

Hi Simon, long time no see.

Does this mean that the judge could award Rebekah the derisory £1 in damages yet still lumber her with the lion's share of the costs?

[Tal]

The crux of this trial is Rooney needing to actually prove Rebekah's foul-play even though I doubt many think she is innocent at this point.

So even if the judge awards her the insulting token £1 in damages the Rooneys will still have to pay the £2M combined legal costs.

Really? Wow.

 

I'm not 100% certain but I believe that's how it works.

Not necessarily. Will be a separate decision. There's a general principle that the loser pays, but who the loser is in a case where someone wanted a lot of money and got £1 isn't cut and dry.

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/05/30/costs-at-the-end-of-the-case-who-is-the-real-winner-and-more-about-failing-to-prove-damages/

Also, the amount you get isn't always 100%, as there's an assessment process.

Hi Simon, long time no see.

Does this mean that the judge could award Rebekah the derisory £1 in damages yet still lumber her with the lion's share of the costs?

Of her own costs, possibly. The default is you get most of your costs if you win, though

[Doobs]

The crux of this trial is Rooney needing to actually prove Rebekah's foul-play even though I doubt many think she is innocent at this point.

So even if the judge awards her the insulting token £1 in damages the Rooneys will still have to pay the £2M combined legal costs.

Really? Wow.

 

I'm not 100% certain but I believe that's how it works.

Not necessarily. Will be a separate decision. There's a general principle that the loser pays, but who the loser is in a case where someone wanted a lot of money and got £1 isn't cut and dry.

https://www.civillitigationbrief.com/2017/05/30/costs-at-the-end-of-the-case-who-is-the-real-winner-and-more-about-failing-to-prove-damages/

Also, the amount you get isn't always 100%, as there's an assessment process.

Hi Simon, long time no see.

Does this mean that the judge could award Rebekah the derisory £1 in damages yet still lumber her with the lion's share of the costs?

Of her own costs, possibly. The default is you get most of your costs if you win, though

I read about this, and think two things go against her if she "wins".  She isn't a very convincing witness, and she allegedly refused mediation.  Would that sound correct? 

Shambles if she wins though, seems the court case has just trashed her reputation more than just saying fair cop gov and moving on.  Though fair to say she was likely badly advised here. 

Take it all back if she earns a mill ball, costs and a series of ghastly press interviews off the back of this.  Genius advisors in those circumstances.

[Doobs]

What the hell is this?

Retired city banker invests £12k and ends up with £8k and sues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61676208

The Woodford fund ended up as a shambles, but he is hardly a naive mug investor, it only seems to be part of his investments and it doesn't even seem much of a loss?   

[tikay]

What the hell is this?

Retired city banker invests £12k and ends up with £8k and sues.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-61676208

The Woodford fund ended up as a shambles, but he is hardly a naive mug investor, it only seems to be part of his investments and it doesn't even seem much of a loss?  

Bankers seem to be naturally greedy. Hardly seems worth the effort, but it probably keeps him awake at nights. I wish £4,000 was the biggest loss I've suffered in share dealings in dodgy outfits.

[booder]

You sorted your Vegas schedule yet ?