The Lawsuits Thread

[Moonbeam]

Nicol also gets to decide on the appeal? WHAT?? Of course, he wouldn't allow Johnny to appeal a verdict that he, himself, decided! I'm sorry, but this sounds OFF!! Listen to the tapes, Nicol, and stop having your head turned by a 'pretty face' which happens to be pure evil!

[Newt]

Apparently it’s standard procedure? Had to go through Nicol before it can go further?

[Lbock]

Permission to appeal can be sought from the lower court at the hearing in which the appealed decision was made. Alternatively, the lower court may adjourn the hearing in order to give a party time to apply for permission to appeal. Where permission is refused by the lower court, permission can be sought directly from the appeal court. It is possible to apply directly to the appeal court for permission. However, given that the application to the lower court is relatively informal and does not require any additional filings to be made, very little is gained by not first seeking permission from the lower court.

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail ... 54f3950e6f

Team Depp (Shillings) followed the proper protocol to file with Nicol giving him a chance to correct himself.

I am sure they expected this outcome.

Now they will decide if they are moving on to the Court of Appeals, next level up.

[ForeverYoung]

Why am I not surprised that Judge Nicol denied Johnny's request for an appeal?

[Lbock]

Greef, a UK lawyer, weighs in

Confusing, he is also saying they should have gone straight to court of appeals and that it will be harder to win now. I guess harder because they have to appeal his original decision and now they have his second statement against the appeal. So the judge double downed. IDK. It definitely appears Shillings was blind-sided and expected a win (as did everyone else)

[Someareborn]

I guess we had to expect that outcome. No judge would grant an appeal to turn over a decision he took months to make in literally two days. Depp filed the appeal on Monday, its two days later - so I bet the judge did not even bother reading it thoroughly. Looks like a standard procedure to file and get it denied. Pure waste of money....which makes me mad.

Still can't decide if its easy or difficult to win a libel case in the UK. When its actually hard, because the "freedom of speech" has to be protected at all costs, what was Shillings strategy? Why let Johnny run with it? I am confused.

[AdeleAgain]

As I understand it, if Schillings had by-passed this step (which they could have done) it would have risked insulting the court system - or perhaps not showing proper respect.

Given that Schillings had to prepare their arguments as to why the judge had ruled incorrectly (based on the law, not on what we feel is right and wrong) - it hasn't been a waste of money. If they are serious about appealing - the work of that 21 days had to be done.

Of course the judge was not going to overrule his own judgement, but they've followed a protocol respectfully.

I just wish we could read the skeleton argument and that we'd known it was the same judge doing this stage - we could all have switched off.

[AdeleAgain]

More interestingly AH's panic in the VA case. She is doing everything she can to stop the charitable donations being made public - now why, Amber, why?

[Lbock]

More interestingly AH's panic in the VA case. She is doing everything she can to stop the charitable donations being made public - now why, Amber, why?

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot to post here

[hollyberry]

Johnny has just been refused to appeal against the ruling....by the same judge who ruled in favour of the Sun.

Can someone please tell me how this is even legal? As a British woman who loves her country I am both ashamed and disgusted with my country's legal system.

[Someareborn]

I get that Shillings followed the protocol here and that it is part of the appeal process. Still a waste of money for me - to work 21days on a formal appeal to get it 100%-denied so that you can move on to the next court. I need to accept it as a smart move I guess.
Would love to read the Skeleton.
Different topic:
Do you think that Team Depp has another set of aces up in their sleeves for the VA trial?
When has AH to submit the receipts of her "donations" in the VA trial?

[ForeverYoung]

Johnny has just been refused to appeal against the ruling....by the same judge who ruled in favour of the Sun.

Can someone please tell me how this is even legal? As a British woman who loves her country I am both ashamed and disgusted with my country's legal system.

It makes absolutely no sense to me at all why a court system would allow the same judge to decide whether he would allow the case to be appealed. Even if the request were to stay in the lower court it should at the very least be given to a different judge, imo.

[AdeleAgain]

Guys these are all very apt questions and as some who is British and who works a bit on the periphery of legal cases sometimes - I feel deeply embarrassed. I have client who've told me for years the British system is stacked against outsiders and honestly I just thought they were being melodramatic and paranoid - but apparently they are right.

It does seem like madness - but let's please remember - all this is happening and none of us have real insight or information. The lawyers on twitter who are engaged - Gre3f and LostBeyondPluto - are excellent but don't know the UK appeals system at all by their own admission. I would absolutely love right now for Adam Waldman to be giving us good heart by explaining what is going on - but I think they are probably right to just keep quiet. Adam is a bit of a target - and what is the point of saying anything much? The people on social media are on JD's side anyway - he has quite sensibly taken himself off to his island. There is no urgent need to constantly explain things which would fall on deaf ears to the MSM.

I do agree with Lbock that VA is the far more strategically important case where the issues and witnesses are more wide ranging. And I do maintain that if she has not donated that money it is going to be hugely damaging to her - never mind what courts say. I assume the subpoena for CHLA will have a time limit and since the hospital put up no objection to the request (unlike I presume ACLU) - hopefully it won't take too long. Although she is fighting it in the court.

My question is - will be know the result of the ACLU info? What does the protective order cover - does anyone know - and is this what JD's side is fighting in early December?

[Lbock]

Interesting

[Inquiring Minds]

Lbok wrote:

Justice Nichol has denied Johnny's request for appeal. He must pay NGN a large lump of their legal fees, but more money will be due once all the costs are figured by the court.

He, apparently can appeal to the next level https://archive.vn/X0PcF#selection-847.0-855.61

On November 2, after a three-week trial, Mr Justice Nicol ruled that Depp had violently abused Heard, a star of the Aquaman film, 12 times during their relationship. Depp’s lawyers had said that that he would appeal against the judgment, which he said was as “perverse as it is bewildering”.

Mr Justice Nicol has now dismissed Depp’s appeal application, saying that he did not believe that it had a “reasonable prospect of success”.

In his ruling the judge wrote: “The findings of fact by a first instance tribunal (particularly one, such as myself, who has heard oral evidence) are rarely open to challenge on appeal. In any event, I do not consider that the proposed grounds of appeal have a reasonable prospect of success (and that is also the case so far as the grounds of appeal suggest that I erred in principle or in law) and there is not some other compelling reason why permission to appeal should be granted.”

The judge has ordered Depp, 57, to pay The Sun £520,000 towards its defence bill by December 7 and a further £108,235 by January 22. The remainder of the legal bill will be paid after a detailed assessment of the costs.
The actor can take the case directly to the Court of Appeal.

Highlighting is mine.

We may not know the precise contents of the appeal, but from this I get:

1. It is claimed he erred on one or more principles of law
2. It is claimed he erred on one or more points of law
3. Other grounds have also been made