Daily Mail phone hacking case

[Blue Jam]

If they claim bankruptcy wouldn't they have to sell the papers off to new owners to get money for their creditors? All national newspapers are in terminal decline, I don't see them surviving this decade, what attraction is for a buyer? Would they have to close the papers temp while new buyers are sort? Is it really worth all this?

I dunno, I'm not a fine legal mind. Sounds like if these four test cases are successful (or perhaps just one?) and the remaining ~100 claimants get the green light to sue then MGN are toast.

[Des Wigwam]

Why would someone for whom any amount of money is virtually meaningless and with access to the best legal representation available settle out of court? Surely for someone like Wills the point is to drag the tabloids through the mill and get them prosecuted rather than accept some cash you really don't need. I wonder why he could possibly not have wanted the details of his phonecalls to be discussed in court?   

I hadn't realised until I watched a docco on this the other night and became a leading authority on the subject that if you don't settle when offered and then get awarded less than the settlement amount in court then you are liable for legal costs.

Explains why people like Steve Coogan who has relatively much more money than me would settle as legal costs could easily bankrupt him. Someone like Prince Harry though could likely weather those costs. Or just buy MGN and use it for good.

[touchingcloth]

Maybe The Mirror could branch out into mirrors?

[Replies From View]

any ginge'll do."

[Peacock Johnson]

I hadn't realised until I watched a docco on this the other night and became a leading authority on the subject that if you don't settle when offered and then get awarded less than the settlement amount in court then you are liable for legal costs.

Explains why people like Steve Coogan who has relatively much more money than me would settle as legal costs could easily bankrupt him. Someone like Prince Harry though could likely weather those costs. Or just buy MGN and use it for good.

Yes this is it. If say the Mail makes  an early offer of £100k and its rejected and the matter runs to full trial and the Judge finds for the Claimant but awards say £90k then cos said Claimant could have had £100k earlier they are on the hook for the Mail's costs from the date of the offer, including their trial costs which overwhelmingly are the largest part of costs. The Claimant does get their costs from the Mail up to the date of the offer but these pale against trial costs.

[Blue Jam]

Just seen this from this week's Popbitch:

>> Piers review <<
He has some reservations

Piers Morgan's absence from the courtroom has not gone unnoticed in the ongoing Mirror hacking trial. Even the judge has wondered why – given how much Piers has had to say on the topic over the years – he wouldn't relish the chance to get in the dock and clear these matters up under oath. 

One of the hacking claimants who gave evidence was especially sad not to see Piers there. They were hoping to take the chance to ask him exactly how he ended up having dinner next to them so frequently. Whenever they arranged to meet their other half for dinner – plans that were generally made by leaving each other voicemails – Piers just so happened to have reservations at the same place.

At the same time.

On the next table

[Blue Jam]

Bants has got the go-ahead to sue the S*n. Go Hazza:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-66322279

[Blue Jam]

...and now Bants and Co. have got the go-ahead to sue the Mail:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67122719

The Duke of Sussex can go ahead with privacy claims against Associated Newspapers, after a judge's ruling opened the way for a trial.

The Daily Mail and Mail on Sunday publishers wanted to stop the case, arguing that allegations of unlawfully obtaining information were out of time.

But a judge has decided the case, involving Prince Harry and six other high-profile claimants, can proceed.

Associated Newspapers has strongly denied the allegations.

In a High Court ruling, Mr Justice Nicklin said that Associated Newspapers had "not been able to deliver a 'knockout blow' to the claims of any of these claimants".

As well as Prince Harry, the newspaper group faces multiple claims of "gross breaches of privacy" from Sir Elton John, David Furnish, Elizabeth Hurley, Sadie Frost, Sir Simon Hughes and Baroness Doreen Lawrence.

This includes allegations of bugging devices in cars, listening into phone calls and dishonestly obtaining medical and financial information.

Given that ANL's defence was effectively "Yeah, of course we did it, duh" I hope they're fucked.

[Blue Jam]

It's been ruled that MGN did indeed hack the phones of Banter Harry and his mates:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67332563

https://www.judiciary.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Duke-of-Sussex-v-MGN-Judgment-Press-Summary.pdf

He's been awarded £140,600 in damages, which may not sound like much until you remember that Harry, along with Michael Le Vell (awarded £31,650), Nikki Sanderson and Paul Whitehouse's ex-wife Fiona Wightman (no damages for either "on limitation grounds" but it's been ruled that many of their allegations were proven), was one of the test cases for about 100 other claimants:

MGN, a company valued at less than £250m has now paid £105m in damages and legal costs

Of course what Bants is really after are criminal proceedings, which may well follow. Best of all? Piers Morgan might (finally) be going daaaaahn:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-67732436

[Blue Jam]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-68243338

Bants vs Kelvin MacKenzie and Piers Morgan. I'm not sure how people can go on siding against Bants here.

Shame the Mail case was dropped but for now, nice one.

[Huxleys Babkins]

I'm not sure how people can go on siding against Bants here.

Because, as McKenzie gleefully points out,

"At the end of the day, [Harry's] not a sympathetic figure in this country.

"The fact that he has actually agreed to a much smaller deal than he could have done if he wanted a fight indicates that even he understands that the nation is not behind him, even though the allegations may be serious."

They've not been hysterically smearing him and his wife across all channels on a constant basis for the past six years for no reason. They did it precisely so that, no matter the outcome, he'd still look like he had it coming.

[Blue Jam]

Well yeah, but I don't know how people can continue to keep falling for it. Isn't there a point where people think "Hmmm, Kelvin MacKenzie? Am I really on the right side here?"

[idunnosomename]

Hate the way the BBC treat MacKenzie like an esteemed elder statesman. Hes a fucking wretched cunt

[Blue Jam]

I've only just realised this is probably a big part of why Piers Morgan has been let go by Talk TV is moving his Talk TV show to YouTube:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-68247739

I hope he ends up like Gaunty, sat in his shed screaming into the void.

[Mr_Simnock]

I was thinking, when I saw that today, well that's the end of that cunt's particular TV show, look forward to seeing it eventually hosted in some village hall after youtube kick him off

[Blue Jam]

https://twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1755948776693399719

...and Meghan's still never gonna shag him.

Didn't Piss Morgan's Talk TV show get lower ratings than predicted anyway? I remember some talk of how they had seriously overestimated his popularity, but his various employers have been doing that for years.

[baptist]

And he's no Tucker Carlson.

[Blue Jam]

He ain't gonna get Vladimir Putin in his shed, that's for sure.

[jobotic]

Wonder what Morgan's loathsome wife makes of his years long public tantrum about another woman not wanting to get amongst his jowels.

Actually no I don't.

[Blue Jam]

Got an excuse to post more Mic Wright here:

Piers Morgan is trying to make his retreat from broadcast television sound like a victory. You'd need a heart of stone not to laugh.

his TV show has been cancelled by the most dangerous form of wokery — total indifference.