The Real IRA point is addressed at [80]-[86] and [270], treating it as

an unincorporated association which could be represented in the

proceedings by one of the other defendants.  It appears that, in a

separate judgment, the Judge had already ruled against an award of

exemplary damages (see [271]).  Andrew

>  -----Original Message-----

> From:        Andrew.Dickinson@CliffordChance.com

> [mailto:Andrew.Dickinson@CliffordChance.com]

> Sent:        08 June 2009 20:07

> To:        A.M.Tettenborn@exeter.ac.uk; obligations@uwo.ca

> Subject:        RE: omagh

>

> The judgment is available in full on the Belfast Telegraph website at:

>

> http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/omagh-families-c

> iv

> il-action-judgment-in-full-14330851.html

>

> Kind regards

> Andrew

>

> >  -----Original Message-----

> > From:        Tettenborn, A [mailto:A.M.Tettenborn@exeter.ac.uk]

> > Sent:        08 June 2009 17:08

> > To:        obligations@uwo.ca

> > Subject:        omagh

> >

> > Colleagues:

> >

> >

> > Apart from the findings of fact and their obvious political

> > implications, there are a couple of other features of the Omagh

> > bombing judgment of Morgan J in the NI High Court today that seem

> > interesting. According to a number of news reports, inc the BBC:

> >

> > 1. He ordered punitive damages. Now, as far as I can see this case

> > can't have come within the Rookes v Barnard criteria of either (a)

> > oppressive action by the state, or (b) a tort committed with a view

> to

> > profit. If so it may be that the point left open by Browne-Wilkinson

> > in Kuddus -- i.e. whether these restrictions remain after the

> removal

> > of the "cause of action" rule -- has been dealt with.

> >

> > 2. He seems to have awarded damages against the Real IRA as well as

> > against the individual Fenians. This outfit presumably is an

> > unincorporated organisation (the mind boggles at a memorandum of

> > association saying Purposes of company -- terrorism and murder): I'd

> > be fascinated to know on what theory he allowed an organisation to

> be

> > sued that in law doesn't exist.

> >

> > No doubt we'll have to wait for further elucidation until we see the

> > text. Or does anyone in the Group have it?

> >

> >

> > Best (and now back to the grading).

> >

> > Andrew

> >

> > [CC]Office[/CC]

>  [CC]Office[/CC]

> 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.

>  

> Clifford Chance LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in

> England & Wales under number OC323571.

> The firm's registered office and principal place of business is at 10

> Upper Bank Street, London, E14 5JJ.

> For further details, including a list of members and their

> professional qualifications, see our website

> at www.cliffordchance.com. The firm uses the word 'partner' to refer

> to a member of Clifford Chance LLP or

> an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications.

> The firm is regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority. The

> Authority's rules can be accessed by clicking on the following link:

> http://www.sra.org.uk/code-of-conduct.page

>  

> Clifford Chance as a global firm regularly shares client and/or

> matter-related data among its different

> offices and support entities in strict compliance with internal

> control policies and statutory requirements.

> Incoming and outgoing email communications may be monitored by

> Clifford Chance, as permitted by applicable law and regulations.

>  

> For further information about Clifford Chance please see our website

> at http://www.cliffordchance.com or refer

> to any Clifford Chance office.

>

>

>

>

 [CC]Office[/CC]