Libel Gone mad

[outragous76]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

[DMorgan]

The judge seems to think the fact he has a  knighthood makes a difference!  Id say less that 5% of the population would have known him/told you anything meaningful about him. Id say that hasnt changed as a result of this case.

For the people that had never heard of Lord McAlpine before all of this, he's now just the guy that was involved in that children's home case. Sally Bercow is a big part of the reason why his public position has shifted from being a relative unknown to being a man accused of sexual exploitation of children, of which he was entirely innocent.

I don't see any logical progression where you can agree that Newsnight/ITV should have been fined, but that Mrs Bercow should have been found not guilty of libel.

[redsimon]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

[outragous76]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

Standard for damages without a judgement yes, but not after one!

[Somerled]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

Standard for damages without a judgement yes, but not after one!

Case was always to be divided into 2 separate hearings - one on meaning, one on damages. To keep legal costs down presumably.

[outragous76]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

Standard for damages without a judgement yes, but not after one!

Case was always to be divided into 2 separate hearings - one on meaning, one on damages. To keep legal costs down presumably.

so it stinks then that they can agree damages between parties

[Somerled]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

Standard for damages without a judgement yes, but not after one!

Case was always to be divided into 2 separate hearings - one on meaning, one on damages. To keep legal costs down presumably.

so it stinks then that they can agree damages between parties

Don't see why it stinks. Why involve the judge and lawyers in an expensive hearing if the 2 sides can agree an amount?

[outragous76]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

Standard for damages without a judgement yes, but not after one!

Case was always to be divided into 2 separate hearings - one on meaning, one on damages. To keep legal costs down presumably.

so it stinks then that they can agree damages between parties

Don't see why it stinks. Why involve the judge and lawyers in an expensive hearing if the 2 sides can agree an amount?

when 2 politicans go to court and create common law on a hot topic? and get a weird verdict?

cant think

[mulhuzz]

and this is of even bigger concern

"Lord McAlpine's solicitor Andrew Reid said Mrs Bercow had agreed a settlement with the peer."

"legislation" though the back door. If it goes to a ruling then the judge should decide damages! Getting fishier by the second! Infact it absolutely stinks!

It was always the case when this went to Court that there was to be a separate hearing on damages if the tweet was deemed to be libel.

Pretty standard for damages to be agreed without a judgment in libel cases  too. In fact often if the libel damages end up being decided at a lower level than offered before going to Court the "winner" can be made to pay the "losers" legal costs.

Standard for damages without a judgement yes, but not after one!

Case was always to be divided into 2 separate hearings - one on meaning, one on damages. To keep legal costs down presumably.

so it stinks then that they can agree damages between parties

Don't see why it stinks. Why involve the judge and lawyers in an expensive hearing if the 2 sides can agree an amount?

when 2 politicans go to court and create common law on a hot topic? and get a weird verdict?

cant think

fortunately it doesn't create that much common law, as the deciding legislation in future cases will be the Defamation Act, although one prominent legal blogger (and probably in the top 5 'most expert people on British libel law') has said that the judge's reasoning probably would have amounted to the same conclusion using the new act, which is interesting.

[Jon MW]

I don't think it creates any precedence anyway - inference has always been part of defamation law hasn't it?

[redsimon]

He's done alright out of this - £185k from the BBC, £125k from ITV and now an undisclosed amount from La Bercow.

Won't get taxed on it either, as he's a non-dom - he quit his seat in the House of Lords in order not to pay UK taxes.

Don't think his domicile matters tbh. Damages aren't taxed as income AFAIK

[Tal]

Michael Tugendhat is an outstanding civil lawyer, particularly on media issues.

Not saying his opinions can't be criticised or political pressures can't be involved in decision-making, but I'd choose his analysis over my own every day of the week.

No issues over precedence; this is a High Court settlement, rather than a ruling by an appeal court

[mulhuzz]

Michael Tugendhat is an outstanding civil lawyer, particularly on media issues.

Not saying his opinions can't be criticised or political pressures can't be involved in decision-making, but I'd choose his analysis over my own every day of the week.

No issues over precedence; this is a High Court settlement, rather than a ruling by an appeal court

there's only Eady J who I'd place above him on the bench for the understanding of media law and privacy, no doubt.

I think he got this one wrong, and badly, is all.

[Tal]

Michael Tugendhat is an outstanding civil lawyer, particularly on media issues.

Not saying his opinions can't be criticised or political pressures can't be involved in decision-making, but I'd choose his analysis over my own every day of the week.

No issues over precedence; this is a High Court settlement, rather than a ruling by an appeal court

there's only Eady J who I'd place above him on the bench for the understanding of media law and privacy, no doubt.

I think he got this one wrong, and badly, is all.

Fair enough. As you know, that is the beauty of our legal system. And why so many are in work.

[mulhuzz]

Michael Tugendhat is an outstanding civil lawyer, particularly on media issues.

Not saying his opinions can't be criticised or political pressures can't be involved in decision-making, but I'd choose his analysis over my own every day of the week.

No issues over precedence; this is a High Court settlement, rather than a ruling by an appeal court

there's only Eady J who I'd place above him on the bench for the understanding of media law and privacy, no doubt.

I think he got this one wrong, and badly, is all.

Fair enough. As you know, that is the beauty of our legal system. And why so many are in work.

not if the proposed reforms to legal aid go through, but that's a different topic.