Archives

The Greg Hughes show kicked off to a lively start this morning with a debate on the Judgement delivered midweek by Judge Steyn in the High Court in London on the question of the legal costs that followed the dismissal of Rebekah Vardy’s Defamation case against Coleen Rooney, when she ordered the former to pay costs estimated at £1.5 million to Mrs. Rooney with the first tranche to be paid by 4 pm on the 15th of November next. Seamus Gunn was of the opinion that there may yet be a pay day for each of the parties in the action due to the interest the case generated on the world stage, saying that it was likely that documentaries and TV shows would follow which would go a long way towards discharging the fees involved in the case. He thought that it beggared belief how Mrs. Rooney’s private life as reported in the Sun Newspaper, featuring traveling to Mexico for gender selection, a return to TV and her basement flooding would give rise to a Court case which could ultimately cost in or around £ 3 million, taking into account each party’s legal fees. He explained that Mrs. Rooney would have already expended a considerable sum pre-trial and that these fees may not be recoverable.

Our contributor thought that Mrs. Vardy may have been considering an appeal after the initial Judgement dismissing her case but that she had major hurdles to overcome which were described as “unfortunate incidents” in the Trial which included a mobile phone being dropped into the sea, forgotten passwords and a broken laptop. He thought that without recovery of this data an appeal may only double the exposure without a return for Mrs. Vardy. He said the Judge’s summing up of the witnesses describing Mrs. Rooney as honest and reliable in comparison to Mrs. Vardy being manifestly inconsistent.. evasive or implausible were significant credibility issues.

Greg Hughes enquired as to whether there was any mechanism in place to safeguard against one taking an action such as Defamation without having the funds to back it. Our Contributor explained the circumstances which may lead to an application to the Court at the early stages of Proceedings seeking security for costs from a party to which this may apply, where they would have to put up a sum in advance of the matter going to Court to cover costs in the event of being unsuccessful. Seamus Gunn thought that the interest going forward shall be how the story plays out in the various different media channels and platforms.

There was also a mention of the class action being brought by some of the entertainment artists against the Daily Mail to restrict the reporting of the kind of gossip that led to the “Wagatha Christie” Trial. Our contributor was of the view that while this may reduce the actual costs per capita pursuing such a claim, that the Daily Mail had such a vested interest in it that they were likely to fully defend their position, a case for the future no doubt.

Various topics were touched on in the interesting Q&A that followed. You can listen to these and the full interview below. 

The first of the Autumn programmes kicked off with Greg Hughes raising the debate of the case in the High Court midweek of Enoch Burke the secondary school teacher being jailed for contempt of court. Our contributor Seamus Gunn pointed out that the background to the case was not that of transgenderism but arose as a result of a teacher ignoring a decision by the Board of Management of his School to suspend him on pay pending a disciplinary process which he said had not yet concluded. He accepted that while the teacher had points to make in relation to his religious beliefs and the Constitutionality of them, that the forum to raise the issues was within the hearing of the disciplinary proceedings. He said there could also have been a challenge to the process by way of Judicial review, which did not take place nor was there any challenge to the High Court Proceedings. The point that the teacher could come back to Court at any time if he wished to purge his contempt was also highlighted. This did not occur and as he had persisted in attending the school and an empty classroom which was in defiance of the injunction, a sentence could be imposed, which if served and the behaviour repeated, could result in the matter being brought back to Court for a second or third time. He made the point that the child at the centre of the case had no hand, act, or part to play in it, that the individual was dealing with a very serious and sensitive issue, and they too had their Constitutional rights. He had some reservations about the matter being in the public domain at this time. He said that all persons were equal before the law and the Constitution is there to protect everyone and would continue to do so. 

As always, the full interview and the Q&A that followed touched on a number of topics and can be listened to below. 

The Zoom contribution from Seamus Gunn opened up this morning with a discussion on the High Court Personal Injury action that was dismissed by Ms. Justice Gearty during the week when a claim taken by a competitor in a motocross race failed. The incident occurred at a meeting in a field in Portarlington, when the competitor sustained severe fractures to his pelvis which resulted in a number of weeks in hospital afterwards. Seamus Gunn agreed with the decision, explaining that the old maxim of Volenti non fit Injuria was applied, which meant that if one voluntarily assumes a risk and is injured as a result in partaking in an activity in which the risk is identified, they cannot then pursue a claim for the injuries suffered. He said that another point that was relevant to the case was the claim made by the Plaintiff that there was a failure to carry out any proper risk assessment of the area and the layout of the track and that there was also a necessity for a marshal at the particular bend where the accident occurred. It was explained that the accident occurred as a result of a collision between two bikes including the Plaintiff and that when the Plaintiff was on the ground the bike which was coming from behind, ran over him. He said that an expert had testified that the outcome would not have been any different if there had been a marshal at the bend and that this was accepted by the Judge. Seamus Gunn was of the opinion that it would set down a marker for such claims being taken where participants who are involved in high-risk sports are unfortunately injured. A claim for damages did not automatically follow and it was more likely to be unsuccessful if negligence could not be proved on the part of the organiser which was the situation in this unfortunate case. 

The pending appeal across the pond of Ghislaine Maxwell against her 20 year sentencing for helping the late financier Jeffrey Epstein sexually abuse girls was also highlighted, our contributor not being optimistic about the conviction being over turned and thought at best a slight reduction in the sentence may be obtained. He said he thought it likely that the Defence would further advance the argument that Ms. Maxwell was pursued by prosecutors only because Epstein had evaded Justice, a point which did not stand up at Trial. 

One of the most wide and varied Q&As followed with some emphasis on the family law division. All of which can be listened to below. 

With the Fairfax County Trial of Depp V Heard reaching a verdict midweek, there was only one show in town up for discussion this morning and as it had been referenced on the last occasion, it was fitting that it could now be revisited with the benefit of the decision. 

Seamus Gunn highlighted that in essence it was a split decision and that both parties had succeeded to some degree. He said that in this jurisdiction, such a decision could have an implication in relation to costs. But it was Johnny Depp’s camp that was hailing victory. He pointed out that the ceiling for punitive damages, while he was awarded $ 5 million, was $ 350,000K, which would taper back his decree. He said that while Ms. Heard in his view had credibility in relation to the allegations she was making, it did not matter how much mud was slung, as Depp won in the Court of social media. He was of the view that Depp had a well-oiled PR strategy that worked in his favor, it garnered massive support on social media which may have proved decisive in the overall outcome. He said that the reputational stakes were such that this was a case that Johnny Depp could not afford to lose. The case in England against the Sun in 2020 was also referred to and the different outcome in the UK jurisdiction. Our contributor thought that while Depp may have won in Fairfax County, there could be another salvo in the case as he would not rule out an appeal, although it would be unlikely to attract the same social media interest, as this had been fully played out over the past 6 weeks. He considered that it would be the “Wagatha Christie” Trial on this side of the pond i.e. in the UK, that would attract all the media attention in the coming weeks when a verdict was anticipated in Rooney V Vardy. 

The full interview and the Q&A on some interesting land matters that followed can be listened to below. 

While we may be coming to the end of the Zoom era, questions keep coming on Highland Radio and this morning was no exception. 

The broadcast opened with the showbiz Trial in Fairfax County between Johnny Depp and his ex-wife Amber Heard being highlighted by our contributor Seamus Gunn who explained how high the stakes were for Johnny Depp and any future career he might hope to pursue on the big screen. He thought that it beggars belief that he would repeat the Trial which had already been run in the UK Courts when he was unsuccessful some 2 years ago after similar allegations were published in the Sun that labelled Depp as a “Wife Beater”. He said in Fairfax County Depp was suing Heard for 50 Million, while she was counter claiming for 100 Million. Seamus Gunn was of the view that money aside, it was the reputational damage that was going to be the big fallout from the case. He said he thought that while Amber Heard may have more time on her side to rebuild her reputation, time may not be so kind to Johnny Depp who is in his late 50s and who already had a follow up to the Pirates of the Caribbean put on hold as a result of liable actions being pursued. Our contributor was of the view that Amber Heard had some credibility in that the allegations of physical abuse did ring true and that she was found to be credible in the English Courts. Therefore, if the same result followed it could be a costly course to pursue for Depp. He was firmly of the view that this was an action that should not have got into the public domain and should have been sorted between the parties. 

This case which has caught the imagination of the US public is continuing and shall be played out further over the coming weeks.

One of the busiest Q&As followed with the very interesting take on the Roe V Wade 1973 case and the leaked Supreme Court draft decision earlier this week. All can be listened to online. 

On the show this morning our contributor Seamus Gunn addressed the developments in the USA when he reviewed the latest sequel in the select committees’ pursuit of ex-US president Donald Trump. He referenced the show on the 10th of December 2021 in relation to Mark Meadows refusing to appear before the committee, who continue to investigate the circumstances surrounding the riot which resulted in 5 deaths. Having said that, they have now gained access to records, documents and memos of the ex-president leading up to the 6th of January 2021 and they are now pursuing the matter in Los Angeles as the committee is considering passing along evidence of alleged criminal conduct by Mr. Trump to the US Justice Department. He said that the claim being advanced was that Mr. Trump and others engaged in criminal and/or fraudulent acts and also a criminal conspiracy to defraud the United States. He said that the focus was now on John Eastman, a lawyer, who was responsible for the strategy to overturn the election results. He said that the privilege point had not been accepted and that if there was a criminal referral, this would result in the Attorney General having to consider charging the former president, which would be a first. He said that while Mr. Trump was continuing to fight on, he was now being pursued on 2 fronts in a pincer movement between New York and LA, and that the net was closing ever so slowly. As predicted in December, this story continues to gain traction and will likely be revisited. 

Once again, the Q&A from the listeners touched on a number of legal headings and can be listened to below.