Now, this bit is fun:
In addition, she was told to repay £790,634 in costs that Banks paid her after he initially lost the case last year.
Quite possibly the crippling bit but also entirely fair. Banks lost so had to pay her costs – ie, her lawyers bills. Now he’s won and so he doesn’t have to pay her lawyers bills. She has to pay her own lawyers. And, of course, pay back Banks for the money he paid to her lawyers.
Whatever else anyone says about any other aspect of the case that does seem entirely and wholly fair, no? Having won Banks shouldn’t have to foot the bill for her lawyers?
You spelt liars wrongly in that last sentence.
‘Banks shouldn’t have to foot the bill for her layers?’ Lairs? Oh lawyers!!
Of course this demonstrates the dangers of lawfare. Sometimes you lose.
Now watch her declare herself bankrupt.
“Now watch her declare herself bankrupt.”
If she owns a house and/or other assets, that’s not a good strategy. Also, any royalty income stream would be in play.
I was a bit surprised to hear that Banks had had to pay her costs in the first case. I thought that would only be determined after any appeal. In any case, that was more of a draw, she had defamed him but he had not suffered reputational damage because she was only speaking to her natural audience.
That was a rather dangerous precedent set by Justice Steyn and had to be dealt with by the Appeal Court. If I accused a well known. political economist of eating babies it should be no excuse that the only ones who read that are you lot, who all agree with me.
There is too much spinning going on here.
Sounds like another judge was trying to make up a new law. Perhaps baroness spider was whispering in his ear?
BiW: it’s Mrs Justice Steyn. Any ear-whispering would have been by her husband. Both have views on Brexit that you can probably predict.
I agree it’s not a great strategy if she has a better alternative.
However she’s now on the hook for returning the £790k which covered her legal costs in the first case, plus whatever her costs defending the appeal were (another £200k at least), plus upwards of £600k being 60% of his costs, plus £35k being the actual damages and finally a shed-load of interest. That’s a minimum of £1.5m.
The house and future royalties will be pretty much in hock unless someone with deep pockets comes to her rescue. She behaved atrociously believing that the likes of Mrs Justice Steyn would protect her. Thankfully she was wrong.
@ John
I suspect that the owner of “The Observer” has deep pockets into which it does not want to dip, hence the Grauniad trying to stir up sympathy for its lying employee. It might find it more difficult to get journalists to campaign fearlessly if they were afraid of being punished for deliberate lies and not bailed out by the billionaire employer.
Amazingly, for I wouldn’t have credited her with the foresight, she insured herself against costs. Plus she is currently running at £2,000 per hour on her Crowdfunding.
she insured herself against costs
I’ve no experience with such insurance, but wouldn’t the insurer want to know the basis of your case? “Yes, I lied, but I did so with good intentions” might raise a few red flags, I would have thought.
Recusant said:
“Amazingly, for I wouldn’t have credited her with the foresight, she insured herself against costs. “
Wouldn’t her lawyer have suggested it, to make sure he got paid?
Am I right in thinking she still, to this day, hasn’t made any direct statement to correct the falsehood? That is apart from the correction implicit in dropping the defence of truth.
Am I also right on thinking that he has been completely vindicated?
Rumour is
Her lawyer was on no win no fee, IE fee is doubled if you win and paid by the other side
She had insurance against having to pay damages and costs
If so there is no need to file for bankruptcy, indeed she might not have to pay anything
So where is the crowdfunding money going? In her pocket?