Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 12:40:13 GMT
I'm afraid to say this is improbable.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 4, 2021 17:36:37 GMT
Can't remember whixh thread it should be in, but as TD has said his alleged potential customers saw a post in August 2017 I'll be interested to know how he will get around this?
Under the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act), the applicable limitation for defamation is one year from the date of accrual of the claim, which in libel claims accrued at the time of publication. Under section 32 of the Act, the strict limitation period can be disapplied.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 17:37:51 GMT
Talk about stirring the pot...
< Wanders off shaking his head >
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 4, 2021 17:39:58 GMT
It's a legitimate question.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 17:43:17 GMT
One that the Dunk has bought up and provided his reasons for continueing countless times before...
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 4, 2021 17:45:07 GMT
It's a legitimate question. Yes it is. I’m curious how you prove loss of income, when you can’t prove you’ve earnt anything in at least the last five years. I would have thought to prove loss of earnings you have to provide some evidence? Maybe like a tax return if your self employed as Tony is or maybe his companies accounts. I’m sure Hmrc would be interested in those.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 4, 2021 17:48:25 GMT
One that the Dunk has bought up and provided his reasons for continueing countless times before... Where? I've missed all those countless posts then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2021 17:54:28 GMT
One that the Dunk has bought up and provided his reasons for continueing countless times before... Where? I've missed all those countless posts then. Basically he claims every post repeating the same stuff re-starts the claim - and until it is proven that his client is still not doing business due to the posts he may be right.
Anyway off to bang my head against a wall.............
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 4, 2021 18:07:55 GMT
You will be banging your head for a long time. Tenner says he doesn't win a claim within 12 months.
I've no beef with Tony and have supported him in his crt cases.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 4, 2021 18:12:01 GMT
You will be banging your head for a long time. Tenner says he doesn't win a claim within 12 months. I've no beef with Tony and have supported him in his crt cases. safe bet as even if he started a claim tmw it wouldn’t be sorted in 12months. There’s a back log of cases because of COVID.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 4, 2021 18:16:48 GMT
I cam change it to 24 months, but it would need an end date.
They are busy, a case I'm helping on has been put back to January as no judge was available at the first hearing.
|
|
|
Post by kris on Oct 4, 2021 18:27:38 GMT
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Oct 4, 2021 18:45:47 GMT
He definitely had a 30 year minimum sentence.
The copper will only be released if he can get his sentence overturned.
I did make comment on the fact it was a singular murder and its possible his sentence is against the sentencing guidelines.
He will have to go through the high court or is it supreme court and ECHR.
but it would only be changed to a life with a minimum of 30 years.
|
|
|
Post by TonyDunkley on Oct 5, 2021 7:30:56 GMT
Can't remember whixh thread it should be in, but as TD has said his alleged potential customers saw a post in August 2017 I'll be interested to know how he will get around this? Under the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act), the applicable limitation for defamation is one year from the date of accrual of the claim, which in libel claims accrued at the time of publication. Under section 32 of the Act, the strict limitation period can be disapplied. There's nothing to "get round" ! Under the latest applicable legislation - Defamation Act 2013 - there is also a strict 12-month time limit on commencing actions or claims for damages after the date on which the internet libel was published. Section 8 - the Single Publication Rule - of the 2013 Act simply refines and elaborates on the provisions of Sections 4A and 32A of the Limitation Act of 1980. Mr Stabby's malicious nonsense about Ricco's wretched engine from August and September 2017, . . and the defamatory nature of the 'three week' joke that was borne out of it and perpetuated out of sheer malice, . . was never anything like a sound basis for a civil action for libel or damages. The internet defamation/libel that he and Kris have so recently publicly directed at me on the back of re-iterated lies originating from August and September 2017, is altogether a very different matter. The plain truth of the Ricco engine saga is that shortly after I visited Middlewich, on 28 August 2017, and found the engine to be well down on compression - piston/ring blow-by and likely blown head gasket too - Mr Stabby contacted Ricco and persuaded him that he should entrust the entire repair job to the local Vetus agent, . . including lifting the engine out, . . which was in fact the next job on my schedule, after I'd finished checking on the availability and prices for the parts likely to be needed sourced directly from Mitsubishi, the base engine maker, instead of the more expensive option of sourcing the same Mitsubishi parts from the local Vetus agent. The engine was in fact lifted out by the local Vetus agent, only a few hundred yards from where the boat was, on 31 August 2017, . . after Mr Stabby bow-hauled the boat down to their yard at King's Lock. Once the engine was lifted out, and despite the fact that the repair work was by then, on Mr Stabby's advice, to be entrusted to the Vetus agent who had lifted it out, . . instead of to me as originally arranged, . . the engine was deposited on the boat's aft deck, and the boat bow-hauled back up the canal to where Ricco had been moored. Why the engine was dumped back on the boat, instead of being left with the people who had been given the repair work, is anyone's guess. So, there you have it, . . the verifiable truth behind the Ricco engine saga, . . as opposed to the malicious lies originated by Mr Stabby, and then believed and perpetuated by others for the last four years.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Oct 5, 2021 7:49:48 GMT
Can't remember whixh thread it should be in, but as TD has said his alleged potential customers saw a post in August 2017 I'll be interested to know how he will get around this? Under the Limitation Act 1980 (the Act), the applicable limitation for defamation is one year from the date of accrual of the claim, which in libel claims accrued at the time of publication. Under section 32 of the Act, the strict limitation period can be disapplied. The plain truth of the Ricco engine saga is that shortly after I visited Middlewich, on 28 August 2017, and found the engine to be well down on compression - piston/ring blow-by and likely blown head gasket too - Mr Stabby contacted Ricco and persuaded him that he should entrust the entire repair job to the local Vetus agent, . . including lifting the engine out, . . Completely wrong as usual. Ricco had already booked the boat into the boatyard on the first ever occasion I met him so unless I persuaded him through some form of telepathy this is yet more of your endless lies.
|
|