Dawkins Libel Case Update

[vjohn82]

The claim was struck out against all defendants. The author who brought the action lost.

My application to strike out the Claimant's case was accepted. My arguments concerning the Claimant's conduct were both accepted and highlighted.

The Judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/B3.html

A summary has been posted here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gsan27

The author's response is here: http://www.mcgproductionsltd.com/JUDGEM ... _CASE.html

[Atheist-Lite]

The claim was struck out against all defendants. The author who brought the action lost.

My application to strike out the Claimant's case was accepted. My arguments concerning the Claimant's conduct were both accepted and highlighted.

The Judgment is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2012/B3.html

A summary has been posted here: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/gsan27

The author's response is here: http://www.mcgproductionsltd.com/JUDGEM ... _CASE.html

You're rolling the money now son. Good luck with the next book?

[maiforpeace]

Wasn't this case brought on after Dawkin's sued Josh Timonen? Has there been any resolution in that case yet?

If not, I must say British courts work fast, it's either that or our courts are clogged with civil suits. Of course they are totally different types of cases, and libel ones are probably a bit easier to resolve.

[vjohn82]

You're rolling the money now son. Good luck with the next book?

Nope... I get nothing. The author has already signalled that bankruptcy is looming and that an appeal is underway. The case is costing me a lot of money which I will never get back.

[vjohn82]

Wasn't this case brought on after Dawkin's sued Josh Timonen? Has there been any resolution in that case yet?

If not, I must say British courts work fast, it's either that or our courts are clogged with civil suits. Of course they are totally different types of cases, and libel ones are probably a bit easier to resolve.

As far as I know the Josh case was discontinued because of some evidence issues.

As for the speed of the case, it has taken precisely one year. However, this was because I actively applied to strike the case out early. The hearings for the strike out were in November 2011. The decision was handed down at the end of March. So it was 4 months to get a resolution which is, with all due respect to the process, far too long.

Other libel litigants have been tied up for 3 or 4 years.

[maiforpeace]

Wasn't this case brought on after Dawkin's sued Josh Timonen? Has there been any resolution in that case yet?

If not, I must say British courts work fast, it's either that or our courts are clogged with civil suits. Of course they are totally different types of cases, and libel ones are probably a bit easier to resolve.

As far as I know the Josh case was discontinued because of some evidence issues.

As for the speed of the case, it has taken precisely one year. However, this was because I actively applied to strike the case out early. The hearings for the strike out were in November 2011. The decision was handed down at the end of March. So it was 4 months to get a resolution which is, with all due respect to the process, far too long.

Other libel litigants have been tied up for 3 or 4 years.

Well congratulations, vjohn82, though I'm sorry about the loss of funds. It must feel good to be vindicated however.

[vjohn82]

Well congratulations, vjohn82, though I'm sorry about the loss of funds. It must feel good to be vindicated however.

It feels good to finally have on record some of the things which I alleged in the first place! I hope authors in the future will see that the court's take a dim view of people promoting their business using unethical means.

[FBM]

Good on you, vjohn82! These days, I think it's a rare kind who take a loss in order to make a stand on principle. Hats off to you, good sir!

[vjohn82]

Good on you, vjohn82! These days, I think it's a rare kind who take a loss in order to make a stand on principle. Hats off to you, good sir!

Thank you

[FBM]

Good on you, vjohn82! These days, I think it's a rare kind who take a loss in order to make a stand on principle. Hats off to you, good sir!

Thank you

No, no, no. Your line is, "You're welcome."

[mistermack]

I'm no legal expert, but I don't see that he had much choice. Fight it, or concede.

Given that, he should be awarded all his costs, and more for time and trouble.
And why can people promote a libel case, without having to stand security for costs if they lose?

It's different if you are the one being sued, you don't have a choice. But if you are suing, you should have to provide security for costs, or back off.