I don't think the BBC gets paid by Trump if he loses. He simply doesn't get his $1b. At best, some time after the conclusion of the case the BBC may get Trump to pay some of their legal fees. It's part of how the legal system is tipped in favour of the wealthy - if someone presses a libel case (or other claim against someone) the defendant would still need to stump up for legal fees to defend themselves, someone with deep pockets can afford that whereas most people can't; in the UK courts may rule that the litigant would be required to pay the defendants legal costs but the amount that the litigant may be required to pay may not be the amount actually paid by the defendant, and there would be a time lag between such a ruling and the fees being paid (with additional risks, eg: the litigant going bankrupt and thus unable to pay). I don't know what the situation in the US would be. It's quite possible that the BBC could defend a defamation case, win, and still be out of pocket.
Trump is clearly not in the best of health. What happens if he kicks the bucket first? Note that I am not suggesting that he should, or wishing any injury on him - just asking about the practicalities.
Presumably any outstanding lawsuit would die with him.
Perhaps under English law, but not under the law of many US states, including, as I understand it, Florida. The lawsuit could continue, with a personal representative (possibly but not necessarily the executor of his estate) being substituted as plaintiff.
Presumably any outstanding lawsuit would die with him.
Perhaps under English law, but not under the law of many US states, including, as I understand it, Florida. The lawsuit could continue, with a personal representative (possibly but not necessarily the executor of his estate) being substituted as plaintiff.
Presumably any outstanding lawsuit would die with him.
Perhaps under English law, but not under the law of many US states, including, as I understand it, Florida. The lawsuit could continue, with a personal representative (possibly but not necessarily the executor of his estate) being substituted as plaintiff.
Similar in English law. The case can proceed.
That's interesting. Correct me if I am wrong but it's often quoted (r.e. English law) that you cannot defame a dead person. So - have I got this right? If the alleged defamation occurs whilst someone is alive and they begin a case, it can then continue after their death?
Presumably any outstanding lawsuit would die with him.
Perhaps under English law, but not under the law of many US states, including, as I understand it, Florida. The lawsuit could continue, with a personal representative (possibly but not necessarily the executor of his estate) being substituted as plaintiff.
Similar in English law. The case can proceed.
That's interesting. Correct me if I am wrong but it's often quoted (r.e. English law) that you cannot defame a dead person. So - have I got this right? If the alleged defamation occurs whilst someone is alive and they begin a case, it can then continue after their death?
For the US states I’m aware of where the action survives the death of the plaintiff, you do have it right.
Again, I don't think we will let it pass. Not because the UK is so important to him, other than as a place to be feted by royalty, but because it would suit him to nobble a major liberal news outlet which has global reach.
I wouldn't have thought he'd be using US tax payers' dollars to pursue a personal lawsuit.
I don't know how the system works in the US but I would imagine that those who can afford to raise lawsuits for defamation would be expected to use their own money or else to apply for some kind of 'legal-aid' funding from whatever sources there might be if they couldn't afford the fees.
If Starmer, say, was taking out a lawsuit against a media outlet I doubt he'd have access to public funds in order to do so.
I wouldn't have thought he'd be using US tax payers' dollars to pursue a personal lawsuit.
I don't know how the system works in the US but I would imagine that those who can afford to raise lawsuits for defamation would be expected to use their own money or else to apply for some kind of 'legal-aid' funding from whatever sources there might be if they couldn't afford the fees.
If Starmer, say, was taking out a lawsuit against a media outlet I doubt he'd have access to public funds in order to do so.
Likewise with the POTUS.
Current POTUS will just solicit "donations": "Nice company you got there; shame if something happened to it."
I wouldn't have thought he'd be using US tax payers' dollars to pursue a personal lawsuit.
I don't know how the system works in the US but I would imagine that those who can afford to raise lawsuits for defamation would be expected to use their own money or else to apply for some kind of 'legal-aid' funding from whatever sources there might be if they couldn't afford the fees.
If Starmer, say, was taking out a lawsuit against a media outlet I doubt he'd have access to public funds in order to do so.
Likewise with the POTUS.
I agree but this Donald Trump. All bets are off. He’s not exactly sticking to the law unless it is to his advantage
I don't know how the system works in the US but I would imagine that those who can afford to raise lawsuits for defamation would be expected to use their own money or else to apply for some kind of 'legal-aid' funding from whatever sources there might be if they couldn't afford the fees.
In the US, the standard arrangements are:
The plaintiff pays costs and attorney fees, some of which in certain types of cases might be recoverable from the defendant(s) if the plaintiff wins;
The attorneys take the case pro bono or at a reduced rate;
In certain kinds of cases, a legal aid practice might take the case; or
The attorneys agree to a contingency fee, meaning they only get paid if the plaintiff wins, and their fee is a percentage of what the plaintiff is awarded (or receives in a settlement).
Of course, there’s also the standard Trump arrangement: retain the attorneys and get the work out of them, but then refuse to pay them.
Keeping up with this. It looks less likely Trump will get nothing. It was not broadcast in the US, he won the election so it didn’t prejudice his election chances. He has to prove that it wasn’t an error but was malicious. The BBC said it was a stupid mistake, and apologised. With all that is going on over there and all that is about to happen re Epstein it will not a priority
1. Discredit a liberal (by American standards) news provider in the eyes of the MAGA faithful
2. Discourage said news provider from giving a platform to anti-Trump viewpoints
3. Distract everyone from the Epstein scandal for a few hours/days/weeks
Comments
Not only possible, but quite a common scenario.
I don't think this is going away anytime soon.
Then we'd get Vance ...
Similar in English law. The case can proceed.
That's interesting. Correct me if I am wrong but it's often quoted (r.e. English law) that you cannot defame a dead person. So - have I got this right? If the alleged defamation occurs whilst someone is alive and they begin a case, it can then continue after their death?
https://www.brettwilson.co.uk/defamation-actions-do-not-survive-the-death-of-a-party/
That must be why he needs such a big ballroom.
I don't know how the system works in the US but I would imagine that those who can afford to raise lawsuits for defamation would be expected to use their own money or else to apply for some kind of 'legal-aid' funding from whatever sources there might be if they couldn't afford the fees.
If Starmer, say, was taking out a lawsuit against a media outlet I doubt he'd have access to public funds in order to do so.
Likewise with the POTUS.
Current POTUS will just solicit "donations": "Nice company you got there; shame if something happened to it."
I agree but this Donald Trump. All bets are off. He’s not exactly sticking to the law unless it is to his advantage
- The plaintiff pays costs and attorney fees, some of which in certain types of cases might be recoverable from the defendant(s) if the plaintiff wins;
- The attorneys take the case pro bono or at a reduced rate;
- In certain kinds of cases, a legal aid practice might take the case; or
- The attorneys agree to a contingency fee, meaning they only get paid if the plaintiff wins, and their fee is a percentage of what the plaintiff is awarded (or receives in a settlement).
Of course, there’s also the standard Trump arrangement: retain the attorneys and get the work out of them, but then refuse to pay them.Or appoint them attorneys in the DOJ even though they are out of their depth, especially if they could be models on the runway.
https://bsky.app/profile/rutgerbregman.com/post/3m6gzjfgg2k2b
"I wish I didn’t have to share this. But the BBC has decided to censor my first Reith Lecture.
They deleted the line in which I describe Donald Trump as “the most openly corrupt president in American history."
1. Discredit a liberal (by American standards) news provider in the eyes of the MAGA faithful
2. Discourage said news provider from giving a platform to anti-Trump viewpoints
3. Distract everyone from the Epstein scandal for a few hours/days/weeks
Any money he gets out of it is a bonus.