Restitution Discussion Group Archives
| Sender: |
Matthew Scully |
| Date: |
Fri, 20 Jul 2001 12:04:07 +0100 |
| Re: |
Celebrity News, or Hello! restitution |
If the judgment can be undone for fraud, then so surely
can any costs award made consequentially. This would then leave room for
re-assessment of costs. However, this does not seem to be what the Star
has done from a procedural point of view, if it is asking for damages
corresponding to its costs.
-----Message d'origine----- I read that Lord Archer is facing
a claim for (a) return of the damages he extracted from the Star; (b)
the Star's costs in unsuccessfully defending the action. I would have
thought the Star were on to a very good runner as regards the (a)- a
judgment can be undone for fraud, and once the Star has got rid of the
judgment in favour of Lord Archer, this seems a fairly case of failure
of assumptions.
But any ideas about the basis on which
the Star can recover its costs from Lord Archer?
AT
*******
This message and any attachment are confidential and
may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you are not
the intended recipient, please telephone or email the sender and delete
this message and any attachment from your system. If you are not the intended
recipient you must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the
contents to any other person.
For further information about Clifford Chance please
see our website at http://www.cliffordchance.com
or refer to any Clifford Chance office.
De: Andrew Tettenborn
Date: vendredi 20 juillet 2001 12:19
Objet: [RDG:] [RDG: Celebrity News, or Hello! restitution
<== Previous message Back to index Next message ==>
»
»
»
»
| For
editorial policy, see here. For the unedited archive, see here. The archive editor is Steve Hedley. |
