Justice Eady - what does he know ? - Page 5

**jhuskey** · #61 01-13.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredC

I do not want this thread to disintegrate into other matters, as it involves one of the greatest bike riders of all time. I was a Pro in Europe a long time ago, and believe me these riders are from another planet.
As to Clinton, who cares about is and was, he might have been questioned slightly different. He's still married to Hillary, and his daughter Chelsea went to Oxford.
He will go down better than Bush in History.
How can Gonzo be an assett to America? You're all losing every day.
In complicated cases here in the UK the judge directs the jury, but of course they don't have to comply.
Of course I have no knowledge of this personal injury claim, but I must comment that it has taken a rather flavourless attitude as the Claimant(Plaintiffs) position would, or could have diminished in physical condition, and might not be attributed to the original physical detriment. I do find this most disconcerting. Cases of this order should be dealt with far more quickly, for various reasons that I understand, but have no notion of your funding laws.

Sounds very familiar as in the judge instructs the jury and later charges the jury before deliberation with verbage that is difficult for a law student to understand and a verdict form issued that is less than simple.
An injury however, no matter how severe does not imply or envoke negligence as in" lack of duty owed" to an invitee ,so to speak. Sometimes progressive injuries cannot be evaluated until all medical procedures have been accomplished, 100 percent recovery has been achieved and in this case a summary judgement that was overturned in State Supreme Court. All time consuming. This case was terminate in a "compromise dismissal" after 16 years.
You are correct though, back to the original subject.

**limerickman** · #62 01-14.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredC

Yes Lim, that's why I'm doing evens. A y'sure now? a little one perhaps. Oim not Barney Curley y'know.
From what I've read the ones who work at the Times in this case might be down at the jobcentre. That was not a legal team they put together in my opinion, the preparation trawled all the caselaw, and was basically sunk without trace. Believe me they have nothing to go to war with. Y'sure y wunt loik a little one, oil give y' 6/5 then. Go on, a little punt is good for the soul.
Jasus, the other night I stuck a £1000 on to win £90. Didn't bat an eyelid.
Better than the Bankrate.
Now come on punt away you rich Americans, I'm working out a book on Hamilton.

Barney Curley indeed.
Give a little back - that was the title of Barney's book.
"Oim only a humble man - why those Captain Boycotts barred me from the race tracks of England 'cause I 'appened to clean 'em out".
Yet he's got millions in his back pocket - "oim only a simple, humble man" : he'd take the eyes out of your head would old BC.

Afraid the betting avenue is off limits - or as Basil Fawlty would say "that little avenue of pleasure has been sealed off, right Sybil ?".

FredC · #63 02-24.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

Fred, I'll defer to your inexhaustive legal expertise and pass.
I'm only an oik.
You'd be shooting fish in the proverbail barrel betting with me.

I just thought that you'd like to be aware that the Dirty Digger is making noises about taking a stand in this case.

I note that today Eady accepted and judged on the case of Maxine Carr that she should be privileged ( legal term) to anonymitity after the release of her conditions of rehabilitation into general society as far as she can be expected to be after her perjurious attempts to defend Ian Huntley.
It may cost a lot of money in the long term, but who cares? we know that justice is neutral and fair.

FredC · #64 08-02.-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by FredC

I note that today Eady accepted and judged on the case of Maxine Carr that she should be privileged ( legal term) to anonymitity after the release of her conditions of rehabilitation into general society as far as she can be expected to be after her perjurious attempts to defend Ian Huntley.
It may cost a lot of money in the long term, but who cares? we know that justice is neutral and fair.

Lance Armstrong v The Sunday Times and others.

LA's counsel appealed against the strike outs made by Justice Eady some time ago. This was heard by three appeal court judges who decided that counsel could indeed continue to argue their case. Most of this will no doubt revolve around the Case Law of Reynolds v The Sunday Times some years ago, in which the Times lost. The state of the game at the moment is a draw plus a few million pounds in costs. Eady did refer to cost capping earlier, but this has gone by the board.
The next move will be the trial, but there is no indication when this might commence at the present time in the listings.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode