I think it is widely assumed that the claimants will not collect.
It is certainly the case that gunmen of both persuasions have bank accounts.
One of my daughters used to live in Belfast. Some Protestant gunmen were shot while using a nearby ATM which I often used.
All best wishes
Michael
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 2009 09:24:13 +1000
From: Neil.Foster@newcastle.edu.au
Subject: RE: omagh
To: Andrew.Dickinson@CliffordChance.com; A.M.Tettenborn@exeter.ac.uk; obligations@uwo.ca
Dear Andrew and others;
Probably a silly question, I know, but does anyone know who exactly is paying the damages? Does the "Real IRA" have a bank account that can be seized? Or are the individuals particularly wealthy? I am assuming that the lawyers may be acting pro bono.
Regards
Neil F
Neil Foster
Senior Lecturer, LLB Program Convenor
Newcastle Law School
Faculty of Business & Law
MC158, McMullin Building
University of Newcastle
Callaghan NSW 2308
AUSTRALIA
ph 02 4921 7430
fax 02 4921 6931
>>> <Andrew.Dickinson@CliffordChance.com> 18/06/09 6:49 >>>
A footnote (from LexisNexis.com):
LNB News 17/06/2009 36
Published Date: 17 June 2009
Jurisdiction: UK
UK
Related Digests
Civil action against Omagh bombers LNB News 20/08/2001 3
Abstract
The civil action over the Omagh bombing could open the doors to a system
of punitive damages in the UK, says Jason McCue, the solicitor who
brought the case. Neasa MacErlean reports
Analysis
Lawyers representing the victims of the Omagh bombing in 1998 plan to
take their case to appeal in order to argue that they should be awarded
punitive damages. "If ever there was a case for punitive damages, this
is it," says Jason McCue of H20 law, the firm that represented the
families of the victims. They have been awarded ?1.6m in compensation
after winning a civil action against four individuals and the Real IRA.
Twenty-nine people and two unborn children were killed by bombs which
exploded in August 1998 in the main shopping street in Omagh, Northern
Ireland. Some of the families decided to take civil action as criminal
proceedings proved unsuccessful in various different ways. Although the
families' lawyers had planned to pursue exemplary damages, they need to
appeal in order to do so. "In the UK we don't have the concept of
punitive damages," says McCue. "But we are saying this is the time to
look for punitive-style damages," Since the development of such a
concept would be such a significant change in UK law, McCue thinks that
it could be taken at the very highest level. "It could take some months
to get to the Court of Appeal," he says. "It might go up to the House of
Lords."
This case would be particularly suitable for such damages, he argues,
because it involves terrorism, the death of so many people and because
the terrorist campaign continued after the bombing.
But whatever happens to the punitive damages case, McCue believes that
UK legal practices regarding victims may well change in response to the
bringing of this case and its victory in the High Court. The civil
action, he says, proved to be "a very effective mechanism for victims
bringing complaints against terrorists, maybe more effective than a
criminal case".
He also thinks that the civil action format could be more effective than
having an enquiry, another common method of dealing with such cases.
"The victims don't lead an enquiry," he says. But they were able to lead
the civil action and to ask the questions they wanted to ask. "That is a
very important part of justice," he says.
He hopes that civil actions will be made easier for victims to take.
"The victims on the next case should not have to struggle," he says.
"It's not just a question of financing but getting the authorities to
provide information and the streamlining of the process." The civil
action took nine years to complete, having been commenced in 2000.
He believes that other civil cases will follow. "Other victims are going
to look at this case," he says. "Before this case, solicitors would have
said that there was no precedent. Now they will be saying to victims:
'Come in and sit down'."
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dickinson, Andrew (L&DR-LON)
> Sent:08 June 2009 20:20
> To:A.M.Tettenborn@exeter.ac.uk; obligations@uwo.ca
> Subject:RE: omagh
>
> 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]
[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.
View your Twitter and Flickr updates from one place –
Learn more!