|
|
|
|
|
|
by dmw_ng
778 days ago
|
|
|
He did not "win in court", a consent order means both parties agreed to a mutual resolution prior to a judgement occurring. If I had to guess it was settled this way because of the time, misery and tremendous cost that would otherwise be involved for all parties. "Wins in court" suggests some thorough process leading up to a final evidential determination made by a judge. That is not what happened here, it'd probably be more accurate to say the parties were motivated to cooperate via their solicitors under looming threat of enduring that process. No skin in this game, but looking at it from the respondents' perspective, 20k split between 4 is incredibly attractive: 5k and an apology to put an end to any threat relating to the issue, given the alternative of potentially unbounded costs to demonstrate innocence with a tortuous and uncertain outcome. From the claimant's perspective it is more confusing, triggering such a heavyweight process then settling for so little given the claimed harms suggests all kinds of things, not least including the kind of advice he may have received given the strength of the case as his solicitors understood it. |
|
|
In my opinion, he did win. The document clearly favours Jon as the other side admitted they have no evidence and made baseless claims - stuck their nose where they shouldn’t have.
Make no mistake that this was a serious character assassination based on zero proof or involvement from authorities.
This was not a bunch of IRC friends doing a prank for the lolz but an open letter with signatures from prominent community members.
I can understand why someone would feel inclined to do something like that, but you ought to consider the repercussions of your actions when it comes to attacking a person based on “word of mouth” evidence.
Everyone gets hurt in the process.