[email protected] has shared Richard III: High Court battle l

Follow-up article deals with the legal fees incurred by the various parties and indicates that the PA has until June 13 to file an appeal. Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-High-Court-battle-leaves-winners/story-21157199-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_leicestermercury#bGQVOTr45CxeXYU3.03
---
jltournier60@... shared this using Po.st: http://www.po.st

To put this whole thing in proportion, why can it be possible to bring a
case against someone, have no costs whatsoever, because the defence lawyers are
doing it for nothing, and when the case is lost, walk away scot free? I know it
was within the law, but what a rubbish law. I trust this loophole will soon be
plugged. How many other self-interest groups will now tread the same path? I do
not mean Ricardian paths, but everything. The cat is out of the bag, and
everyone knows that a little within-the-law wriggling gets you around
responsibility. My comment has nothing to do with whether or not I support
Leicester or York, rather with the whole principle of this challenge. If I had a
case brought against me and won, I certainly do not think I should left to pay
for the privilege of being innocent of wrongdoing. My costs should be paid for
by the losing side. Whoever took me to the court in the first place should have
to cough up, not me for successfully defending myself. It's wrong. It's legal
mugging. And it's something anyone can do on a whim. (I'm not saying the
Alliance acted on a whim, just that it is possible to do so.) I wanted Richard
in Gloucester anyway, so have no bias in this. My preference was out on a limb
from the start. And please, I am not being argumentative or stirring, it is
simply the principle that gets my goat.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:40 AM
To:
Subject: jltournier60@... has
shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs |
Leicester Mercury
Follow-up article deals with the legal fees incurred by the various parties
and indicates that the PA has until June 13 to file an appeal. Richard III: High
Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-High-Court-battle-leaves-winners/story-21157199-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_leicestermercury#bGQVOTr45CxeXYU3.03---jltournier60@...
shared this using Po.st: http://www.po.st[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]

Hi, Sandra It seemed weird to me, too. I know that in Nova Scotia, it is possible (at least in a civil case), for one party to make an application for security for costs, meaning that the other side has to prove in advance that it has the financial means to pay costs in the event they are ordered later. Obviously this is the *opposite* of what they report was done in this case  the Claimant filed something that they shouldn't be held liable for costs, no matter what. The article says that was because the PA was a shell company, which I interpret as something that is set up like a company but which has no assets and probably no cash flow. It is not uncommon for lawyers to contribute their services on a pro bono basis, as a service to a needy client, but there does seem to be some fundamental unfairness, doesn't there? Of course, the lawyers for the City and the Minister and the University could have also decided to donate their time. ;-) Again in NS, and I think this probably holds true for the UK as well, although an order for costs normally follows the result, it is possible for the courts to order that all the parties will bear their own costs. That is often the case when there is a legitimate issue to be tried and both sides have some merit, and no party unduly drags things out and/or abuses the process of the court. In this case, one could almost have envisioned an order for costs being made against the City of Leicester, since the court's severest criticism was reserved for it. However, again this might be seen as unfairness, corporate bodies, like a City council, are normally responsible for paying such orders, and not the individual members who may have been responsible for making bad decisions. In this case, it is likely that by jumping into the case, the City caused extra expense for everyone else, and unfortunately did not contribute in a felicitous way to the proceedings. The law may be an a**, as someone once said, but no one can deny its fascination as to how these things can work out. Despite my willingness to debate ad nauseam, emotionally I agree with Paul that it is (past) time to lay the King to rest with all honour and dignity befitting an anointed King of England. Loyaulte, Johanne ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Johanne L. Tournier Email - [email protected] jltournier@... "With God, all things are possible."                              - Jesus of Nazareth~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ From: [mailto:] Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 9:04 AMTo: Subject: Re: jltournier60@... has shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury To put this whole thing in proportion, why can it be possible to bring a case against someone, have no costs whatsoever, because the defence lawyers are doing it for nothing, and when the case is lost, walk away scot free? I know it was within the law, but what a rubbish law. I trust this loophole will soon be plugged. How many other self-interest groups will now tread the same path? I do not mean Ricardian paths, but everything. The cat is out of the bag, and everyone knows that a little within-the-law wriggling gets you around responsibility. My comment has nothing to do with whether or not I support Leicester or York, rather with the whole principle of this challenge. If I had a case brought against me and won, I certainly do not think I should left to pay for the privilege of being innocent of wrongdoing. My costs should be paid for by the losing side. Whoever took me to the court in the first place should have to cough up, not me for successfully defending myself. It's wrong. It's legal mugging. And it's something anyone can do on a whim. (I'm not saying the Alliance acted on a whim, just that it is possible to do so.) I wanted Richard in Gloucester anyway, so have no bias in this. My preference was out on a limb from the start. And please, I am not being argumentative or stirring, it is simply the principle that gets my goat. Sandra=^..^= From: mailto: Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:40 AMTo: Subject: jltournier60@... has shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury Follow-up article deals with the legal fees incurred by the various parties and indicates that the PA has until June 13 to file an appeal. Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-High-Court-battle-leaves-winners/story-21157199-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_leicestermercury#bGQVOTr45CxeXYU3.03---jltournier60@... shared this using Po.st: http://www.po.st

It's certainly an anomaly and explains Chris Grayling's anger about the whole process. The "shell company" thing also explains why the PA established itself along corporate grounds from the off, which I thought odd for a campaigning group. I also note that until 21 May the PA was soliciting for donations. If they've incurred no costs, I'd be interested as to where the money's gone. They may only have received 25p but, equally, they may have received £25,000. Whatever they raised may have been eaten up by their pro bono-legal costs but, again, not
necessarily. There's been a lack of clarity from the beginning that I've found very dubious...I suppose the worst thing is that, purely in PR terms, it's cast the Judicial Review system in a poor light. JR is coming under enough pressure as it is from the government, and I don't want them to have more ammunition to curtail it.Jonathan From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> To: Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2014, 13:04 Subject: Re: jltournier60@... has shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury
To put this whole thing in proportion, why can it be possible to bring a
case against someone, have no costs whatsoever, because the defence lawyers are
doing it for nothing, and when the case is lost, walk away scot free? I know it
was within the law, but what a rubbish law. I trust this loophole will soon be
plugged. How many other self-interest groups will now tread the same path? I do
not mean Ricardian paths, but everything. The cat is out of the bag, and
everyone knows that a little within-the-law wriggling gets you around
responsibility. My comment has nothing to do with whether or not I support
Leicester or York, rather with the whole principle of this challenge. If I had a
case brought against me and won, I certainly do not think I should left to pay
for the privilege of being innocent of wrongdoing. My costs should be paid for
by the losing side. Whoever took me to the court in the first place should have
to cough up, not me for successfully defending myself. It's wrong. It's legal
mugging. And it's something anyone can do on a whim. (I'm not saying the
Alliance acted on a whim, just that it is possible to do so.) I wanted Richard
in Gloucester anyway, so have no bias in this. My preference was out on a limb
from the start. And please, I am not being argumentative or stirring, it is
simply the principle that gets my goat.
Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:40 AM
To:
Subject: jltournier60@... has
shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs |
Leicester Mercury
Follow-up article deals with the legal fees incurred by the various parties
and indicates that the PA has until June 13 to file an appeal. Richard III: High
Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-High-Court-battle-leaves-winners/story-21157199-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_leicestermercury#bGQVOTr45CxeXYU3.03---jltournier60@...
shared this using Po.st: http://www.po.st[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]

"pro-bono legal costs", of course, is a contradiction in terms. What I meant was, I'm sure that there must have been some expense involved, even if much of the work was voluntary, but enough to eat up the contributions of, to quote the PA website, "all those people who have so generously given for the cause over the past 14 months"?Jonathan From: "Jonathan Evans jmcevans98@... []" <> To: "" <> Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2014, 14:09 Subject: Re: jltournier60@... has shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury
It's certainly an anomaly and explains Chris Grayling's anger about the whole process. The "shell company" thing also explains why the PA established itself along corporate grounds from the off, which I thought odd for a campaigning group. I also note that until 21 May the PA was soliciting for donations. If they've incurred no costs, I'd be interested as to where the money's gone. They may only have received 25p but, equally, they may have received £25,000. Whatever they raised may have
been eaten up by their pro bono-legal costs but, again, not
necessarily. There's been a lack of clarity from the beginning that I've found very dubious...I suppose the worst thing is that, purely in PR terms, it's cast the Judicial Review system in a poor light. JR is coming under enough pressure as it is from the government, and I don't want them to have more ammunition to curtail it.Jonathan From: "'SandraMachin' sandramachin@... []" <> To: Sent: Thursday, 29 May 2014, 13:04 Subject: Re: jltournier60@... has shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury
To put this whole thing in proportion, why can it be possible to bring a
case against someone, have no costs whatsoever, because the defence lawyers are
doing it for nothing, and when the case is lost, walk away scot free? I know it
was within the law, but what a rubbish law. I trust this loophole will soon be
plugged. How many other self-interest groups will now tread the same path? I do
not mean Ricardian paths, but everything. The cat is out of the bag, and
everyone knows that a little within-the-law wriggling gets you around
responsibility. My comment has nothing to do with whether or not I support
Leicester or York, rather with the whole principle of this challenge. If I had a
case brought against me and won, I certainly do not think I should left to pay
for the privilege of being innocent of wrongdoing. My costs should be paid for
by the losing side. Whoever took me to the court in the first place should have
to cough up, not me for successfully defending myself. It's wrong. It's legal
mugging. And it's something anyone can do on a whim. (I'm not saying the
Alliance acted on a whim, just that it is possible to do so.) I wanted Richard
in Gloucester anyway, so have no bias in this. My preference was out on a limb
from the start. And please, I am not being argumentative or stirring, it is
simply the principle that gets my goat.
Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:40 AM
To:
Subject: jltournier60@... has
shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs |
Leicester Mercury
Follow-up article deals with the legal fees incurred by the various parties
and indicates that the PA has until June 13 to file an appeal. Richard III: High
Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester Mercury
http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-High-Court-battle-leaves-winners/story-21157199-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_leicestermercury#bGQVOTr45CxeXYU3.03---jltournier60@...
shared this using Po.st: http://www.po.st[Non-text portions of this
message have been removed]

Hi again, Johanne.
I love reading your posts, you set it all out so clearly. Yes, I know
Leicester did itself no favours  indeed, it's done itself few such all along 
but I still think this whole business is wrong. Anyway, it's all done and dusted
now...unless the Alliance appeals. If they succeed and get THAT for nothing as
well, I will consider it a gross injustice. The people of Leicester will have to
pay again through their Council Tax, and if the Ministry of Justice has
to pay more costs, that means the people of Leicester paying yet again through
Income Tax. And the rest of us too. I'll be most indignant, and I'm sure they
will be as well. They'll be paying out for a situation that already existed in
the first place, that still exists in spite of the Judicial Review and will no
doubt continue to exist if the appeal fails. Not that I---or they, or the rest
of us---can do much about it.
I know the sum is peanuts in the great scheme of things, but what if it
weren't peanuts? We'd all still have to pay. I'll have some satisfaction in
knowing that the Alliance pays Income Tax as well, so they will contribute
something to their costs, even if it's not a lot and is in a roundabout way. I'd
feel the same about whoever brought such a case as a shell' company,
so it's not personal. Once again, it's the principle of it all, and not just
this specific case.
But you're right, Richard is the man, the only person of any consequence in
all of this. I look forward to seeing him laid to rest with all the reverence
due to him, and will be going to see him in due course, when it's quieter and
I'll be able to stand there without a crush all around. I'll wish all honour to
the finest king of them all.
Sandra
=^..^=
From: mailto:
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:55 PM
To:
Subject: RE: jltournier60@...
has shared Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs |
Leicester Mercury

Hi, Sandra

It seemed weird
to me, too. I know that in Nova Scotia, it is possible (at least in a civil
case), for one party to make an application for security for costs, meaning
that the other side has to prove in advance that it has the financial means to
pay costs in the event they are ordered later. Obviously this is the
*opposite* of what they report was done in this case  the Claimant filed
something that they shouldn't be held liable for costs, no matter what. The
article says that was because the PA was a shell company, which I interpret as
something that is set up like a company but which has no assets and probably no
cash flow.

It is not
uncommon for lawyers to contribute their services on a pro bono basis, as a
service to a needy client, but there does seem to be some fundamental
unfairness, doesn't there? Of course, the lawyers for the City and the Minister
and the University could have also decided to donate their time. ;-)


Again in NS,
and I think this probably holds true for the UK as well, although an order for
costs normally follows the result, it is possible for the courts to order that
all the parties will bear their own costs. That is often the case when there is
a legitimate issue to be tried and both sides have some merit, and no party
unduly drags things out and/or abuses the process of the court. In this case,
one could almost have envisioned an order for costs being made against the City
of Leicester, since the court's severest criticism was reserved for it. However,
again this might be seen as unfairness, corporate bodies, like a City council,
are normally responsible for paying such orders, and not the individual members
who may have been responsible for making bad decisions. In this case, it is
likely that by jumping into the case, the City caused extra expense for everyone
else, and unfortunately did not contribute in a felicitous way to the
proceedings.

The law may be
an a**, as someone once said, but no one can deny its fascination as to how
these things can work out.

Despite my
willingness to debate ad nauseam, emotionally I agree with Paul that it is
(past) time to lay the King to rest with all honour and dignity befitting an
anointed King of England.

Loyaulte,

Johanne

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Johanne L.
Tournier

Email -
jltournier60@...
or
jltournier@...

"With God, all
things are possible."

- Jesus of Nazareth
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From:
[mailto:] Sent: Thursday, May
29, 2014 9:04 AMTo:
Subject: Re: [Richard III
Society Forum] jltournier60@... has shared Richard III: High Court
battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester
Mercury


To put this whole thing in
proportion, why can it be possible to bring a case against someone, have no
costs whatsoever, because the defence lawyers are doing it for nothing, and when
the case is lost, walk away scot free? I know it was within the law, but what a
rubbish law. I trust this loophole will soon be plugged. How many other
self-interest groups will now tread the same path? I do not mean Ricardian
paths, but everything. The cat is out of the bag, and everyone knows that a
little within-the-law wriggling gets you around responsibility. My comment has
nothing to do with whether or not I support Leicester or York, rather with the
whole principle of this challenge. If I had a case brought against me and won, I
certainly do not think I should left to pay for the privilege of being innocent
of wrongdoing. My costs should be paid for by the losing side. Whoever took me
to the court in the first place should have to cough up, not me for successfully
defending myself. It's wrong. It's legal mugging. And it's something anyone can
do on a whim. (I'm not saying the Alliance acted on a whim, just that it is
possible to do so.) I wanted Richard in Gloucester anyway, so have no bias in
this. My preference was out on a limb from the start. And please, I am not being
argumentative or stirring, it is simply the principle that gets my
goat.

Sandra
=^..^=

From: mailto:

Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2014 11:40
AM
To:

Subject: jltournier60@... has shared
Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000 costs | Leicester
Mercury


Follow-up article deals with the legal fees
incurred by the various parties and indicates that the PA has until June 13 to
file an appeal. Richard III: High Court battle leaves winners with £250,000
costs | Leicester Mercury http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/Richard-III-High-Court-battle-leaves-winners/story-21157199-detail/story.html?ito=email_newsletter_leicestermercury#bGQVOTr45CxeXYU3.03---jltournier60@... shared this
using Po.st: http://www.po.st[Non-text
portions of this message have been
removed]