Prince Harry v The Mirror in phone hacking case

Spotify have dropped Meghan.

This is a perfectly normal tactic in civil proceedings. If the defendant makes an offer to settle which is higher than the amount of damages the court awards, the claimant may be liable to pay the defendant’s costs despite having won his case. This is because parties are encouraged to settle and not to waste the court’s time by pursuing a claim out of sheer vindictiveness.
It’s not a disgusting system. It has been in place for a very long time, for good reason.

maddyone

Spotify have dropped Meghan.

Yes but I read that the deal ended ^by mutual agreement^🤭

And I’m a Chinaman.

Germanshepherdsmum

This is a perfectly normal tactic in civil proceedings. If the defendant makes an offer to settle which is higher than the amount of damages the court awards, the claimant may be liable to pay the defendant’s costs despite having won his case. This is because parties are encouraged to settle and not to waste the court’s time by pursuing a claim out of sheer vindictiveness.
It’s not a disgusting system. It has been in place for a very long time, for good reason.

So basically what you are saying is it is OK for someone to break the law as long as they can afford to buy off the person they have offended against. And it is OK to keep offering someone more and more money until you reach a figure which they are unlikely to get in any court action, and then threaten them with your legal fees if they don't settle.
It may be legal, it isn't moral
It means the law is only available to those who have enough money and won't be intimidated.

Meghan's Archetypes podcast is AXED by Spotify: Streaming platform and Sussexes 'agree to part company' with royal pair 'set to lose full $20m payout because show didn't hit targets'

That isn't what GSM is saying Glorianny, she's simply enabling us to benefit from her legal knowledge.

Thank you GSM.

Smileless2012

That isn't what GSM is saying Glorianny, she's simply enabling us to benefit from her legal knowledge.

Thank you GSM.

The trouble with the law is that if you have enough money you can, in some circumstances, use it to work in your favour. Which isn’t to say the law is flawed just that nothing is 100% incorruptible. Enough money can find it’s way round a lot of things.

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

This is a perfectly normal tactic in civil proceedings. If the defendant makes an offer to settle which is higher than the amount of damages the court awards, the claimant may be liable to pay the defendant’s costs despite having won his case. This is because parties are encouraged to settle and not to waste the court’s time by pursuing a claim out of sheer vindictiveness.
It’s not a disgusting system. It has been in place for a very long time, for good reason.

So basically what you are saying is it is OK for someone to break the law as long as they can afford to buy off the person they have offended against. And it is OK to keep offering someone more and more money until you reach a figure which they are unlikely to get in any court action, and then threaten them with your legal fees if they don't settle.
It may be legal, it isn't moral
It means the law is only available to those who have enough money and won't be intimidated.

No, that’s not what I am saying, as you know full well. This procedure has its roots in the 1976 case of Calderbank v Calderbank so is nothing new, and there is also a specific procedure covering offers to settle set out in the Civil Procedure Rules. If a claimant in a civil case seeks damages and is offered say £1m by the defendant to settle but refuses and presses on with their action but the court decides the appropriate measure of damages is £500k, then they have been wasting the court’s time and the defendant’s costs by refusing to accept an offer which their counsel would most likely have advised them was sensible. Counsel in civil proceedings know what level of damages is likely to be awarded if their client succeeds. Claimants are not ‘threatened’ by the defendant with a claim for costs - you make it sound so dramatic - it is the law that the court will very likely make an order for the defendant to pay the wasted costs if he has refused an offer greater than the court considers the appropriate level of damages. It’s absolutely nothing to do with justice only being available to those who have money and won’t be intimidated. More drama. If the defendant insists on pursuing their action when it will end at best in a Pyrrhic victory, I would call that ignoring advice, wasting court time and the defendant’s legal fees and being rightly punished for doing so.

Smileless2012

That isn't what GSM is saying Glorianny, she's simply enabling us to benefit from her legal knowledge.

Thank you GSM.

That may not be what she is saying but that is the result of this legislation, which has meant no one could afford to take the newspapers to court.
Especially those injured in the bombings on 7th July.
As I said it may be legal, it is not moral

GSM, my knowledge of the law is garnered entirely from Rumpole of the Bailey (now there's a series that hasn't worn well in terms of casual misogyny and racism).
So I really enjoy it when you set out the law on topics under discussion. It makes me feel my knowledge base has increased. 🌼

Germanshepherdsmum

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

This is a perfectly normal tactic in civil proceedings. If the defendant makes an offer to settle which is higher than the amount of damages the court awards, the claimant may be liable to pay the defendant’s costs despite having won his case. This is because parties are encouraged to settle and not to waste the court’s time by pursuing a claim out of sheer vindictiveness.
It’s not a disgusting system. It has been in place for a very long time, for good reason.

So basically what you are saying is it is OK for someone to break the law as long as they can afford to buy off the person they have offended against. And it is OK to keep offering someone more and more money until you reach a figure which they are unlikely to get in any court action, and then threaten them with your legal fees if they don't settle.
It may be legal, it isn't moral
It means the law is only available to those who have enough money and won't be intimidated.

No, that’s not what I am saying, as you know full well. This procedure has its roots in the 1976 case of Calderbank v Calderbank so is nothing new, and there is also a specific procedure covering offers to settle set out in the Civil Procedure Rules. If a claimant in a civil case seeks damages and is offered say £1m by the defendant to settle but refuses and presses on with their action but the court decides the appropriate measure of damages is £500k, then they have been wasting the court’s time and the defendant’s costs by refusing to accept an offer which their counsel would most likely have advised them was sensible. Counsel in civil proceedings know what level of damages is likely to be awarded if their client succeeds. Claimants are not ‘threatened’ by the defendant with a claim for costs - you make it sound so dramatic - it is the law that the court will very likely make an order for the defendant to pay the wasted costs if he has refused an offer greater than the court considers the appropriate level of damages. It’s absolutely nothing to do with justice only being available to those who have money and won’t be intimidated. More drama. If the defendant insists on pursuing their action when it will end at best in a Pyrrhic victory, I would call that ignoring advice, wasting court time and the defendant’s legal fees and being rightly punished for doing so.

GSM Did you watch the TV programme? Steve Coogan told how he didn't want money, but the amount offered was increased significantly each time he said "No", and the newspaper group made it clear to him that they would pursue costs if he chose to take them to court.
The intention of the law may be admirable but one person after another told how they had to drop out because they were worried about the legal costs.
This legislation has been used to cover up illegal activities. Is that moral? Is that justice?

It’s always the case, always has been the case, that civil action is expensive and the outcome frequently uncertain.
To my mind it’s immoral to press on with an action regardless of having been offered a settlement greater than the court is likely to award, and thereby waste court time (funded at great expense by the taxpayer) and the defendant’s costs just because you have deep pockets and can afford to ignore good advice.

Incidentally it isn't that I don't understand the procedure (the everlasting belief of solicitors that only they understand the law) it is that I believe it is being misused to enable wrongdoing.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s always the case, always has been the case, that civil action is expensive and the outcome frequently uncertain.
To my mind it’s immoral to press on with an action regardless of having been offered a settlement greater than the court is likely to award, and thereby waste court time (funded at great expense by the taxpayer) and the defendant’s costs just because you have deep pockets and can afford to ignore good advice.

So in effect it's fine to break the law as long as you pay out enough to stop court proceedings. Really!!?

This is not legislation Glorianny, it’s a legitimate procedure founded in common law and also set out in the Civil Procedure Rules. And given my former profession I don’t need to watch a tv programme to know about it. It does not cover up illegal activities. Has the current litigation not been extremely well publicised?
Consider what I said above about the morality of ploughing on regardless of an offer to settle.

Glorianny

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s always the case, always has been the case, that civil action is expensive and the outcome frequently uncertain.
To my mind it’s immoral to press on with an action regardless of having been offered a settlement greater than the court is likely to award, and thereby waste court time (funded at great expense by the taxpayer) and the defendant’s costs just because you have deep pockets and can afford to ignore good advice.

So in effect it's fine to break the law as long as you pay out enough to stop court proceedings. Really!!?

You’re being really silly. The reason anyone commences civil proceedings is to get an award of damages and maybe in some cases an injunction (which is not relevant here). If you’re offered more than the level of damages the court thinks proper, why would you not settle? I would suggest out of sheer pig-headedness, and I’ve seen plenty of that over the years.

That’s my last word to you on this Glorianny. It’s like a combination of ground hog day and trying to reason with an argumentative child. As I said to you yesterday over the Foster case, good day.

Ah well all I can say is that the majority of defendants in the phone hacking and private investigator cases did not want compensation. They wanted the newspapers brought to court and their cases seen by the public. Now that may not be true in the majority of cases but it certainly was in these ones. And I can see that admitting the law is being used, and that these cases are morally wrong, and that justice has not been served is difficult for you. So you pretend it isn't happening.
I'm just pleased I haven't reached the level where I assume everyone wants damages, and I still believe some people just want justice and their day in court, which sadly they can't get unless they are mega-rich.

Glorianny says
^Incidentally it isn't that I don't understand the procedure . . . it is that I believe it is being misused to enable wrongdoing.*

Warning! Potential deviation!

Strangely enough, I can apply that to another situation where the procedure/law is being misused to enable wrong doing. But I won’t elaborate, because that would be TAAT.

Mollygo

Glorianny says
^Incidentally it isn't that I don't understand the procedure . . . it is that I believe it is being misused to enable wrongdoing.*

Warning! Potential deviation!

Strangely enough, I can apply that to another situation where the procedure/law is being misused to enable wrong doing. But I won’t elaborate, because that would be TAAT.

And it seems a bit obsessive to be unable to debate a subject without introducing your pet peeve

MayBee70

I’m currently watching the BBC2 programme about phone hacking. I did miss some of it (nodded off earlier) but some of the people interviewed said they needed someone with enough money to take the newspapers to court and risk losing a lot of money. Sounds like Harry is that person.

Possibly not as rich as Elton, though?

Glorianny says
And it seems a bit obsessive to be unable to debate a subject without introducing your pet peeve.
I didn’t mention any subject, but you think
you recognise another situation where the procedure/law is being misused to enable wrong doing as something I’m consernned about.
That made my day!

Concerned

Mollygo

Glorianny says
And it seems a bit obsessive to be unable to debate a subject without introducing your pet peeve.
I didn’t mention any subject, but you think
you recognise another situation where the procedure/law is being misused to enable wrong doing as something I’m consernned about.
That made my day!

Twisting again Mollygo seems to ba an essential part of debate for you.

What did I twist Glorianny?

I announced my potential diversion, rather than slipping it in the way some posters do.
I added no further information.

You immediately responded, deciding you have added mind reading to your repertoire.
Since you didn’t disagree with what you decided I meant, I’ll take that as agreement.
Thanks.
Oh and what did I twist?