Chris Cairns: Super Cheat..?

[CWB304]

Looks like Modi's finally got his comeuppance.

Yep!

 

[Cevno]

Wasn't Modi declared Bankrupt by a UK court a while back?

 

[Cevno]

Lalit Modi declared bankrupt in London court - Hindustan Times

So he is technically fleeing from govt. agencies investigating cases against him in India and living in London for some time now while being Bankrupt and claiming threats to his back home. Wonder how come he is able to influence Rajasthan Cricket Association so much again and also hire best lawyers here to defend him with all this going on? I'm not sure he is someone known for a austere life either.

And the Libel laws in UK are strange tstl.

 

[sledger]

And the Libel laws in UK are strange tstl.

How so? I don't neccessarily disagree, I'm just curious as to why you think so.

 

[Cevno]

How so? I don't neccessarily disagree, I'm just curious as to why you think so.

Due to lot's of things, IMO.

First i don't know the exact specifics to the last detail but from what i can gather the claimant doesn't have to prove the damage he has suffered and can ask for whatever large amounts as a result, which are awarded too. These mostly are even bigger than damages awarded for causing bodily harm to someone. Also the claimant doesn't have to prove if that damage was caused in the UK or not and whether the matter is fit for trial there, which means there is no limit on foreign claimant launching cases against foreign defendants there.

Then all publications publishing or republishing can be sued not just the initial source, while the burden of proving guilt lies completely on defendant and that too with burden of proof being as much as required in court with a full jury and not just a sports body.Not sure about Jury system overall deciding libels too as it is bound to be influenced to a great deal by extraneous factors.

Other reasons are explained here -

Defamation Law | UK Law on Defamation of Character, Libel, Slander & Defamatory Comments

Didn't the Deputy Prime Minister there call the laws a International laughing stock a while back too?

 

[sledger]

Juries don't tend to sit on defamation cases here though. Defamation isn't a criminal offence under UK law.

And the damage may not have to occur in the UK, but the defamatory statement must be at least published there. You can't try and sue someone for libel in a UK court if the act of publication took place in a non-English speaking country for instance.

 

[BeeGee]

Very happy for Cairns.
What a nightmare scenario. I bunch of spot fixers in your team get together and say the captain told us to do it, just to save their own worthless hides.

Modi gets what he deserves. Awesome.

 

[Furball]

Due to lot's of things, IMO.

First i don't know the exact specifics to the last detail but from what i can gather the claimant doesn't have to prove the damage he has suffered and can ask for whatever large amounts as a result, which are awarded too. These mostly are even bigger than damages awarded for causing bodily harm to someone. Also the claimant doesn't have to prove if that damage was caused in the UK or not and whether the matter is fit for trial there, which means there is no limit on foreign claimant launching cases against foreign defendants there.

Then all publications publishing or republishing can be sued not just the initial source, while the burden of proving guilt lies completely on defendant and that too with burden of proof being as much as required in court with a full jury and not just a sports body.Not sure about Jury system overall deciding libels too as it is bound to be influenced to a great deal by extraneous factors.

Other reasons are explained here -

Defamation Law | UK Law on Defamation of Character, Libel, Slander & Defamatory Comments

Didn't the Deputy Prime Minister there call the laws a International laughing stock a while back too?

Why shouldn't it?

If I said something slanderous about an individual who took me to court, then surely the burden lies with me to prove that what I've said is either true, or fair comment?

 

[sledger]

Presumably Cevno means "proving innocence", I very much doubt most defendants would want to establish their own guilt.

 

[zaremba]

Juries don't tend to sit on defamation cases here though. Defamation isn't a criminal offence under UK law.

Sometimes defamation cases are tried by a judge alone and sometimes by a jury. It's the only non-criminal area of English law that I can think of in which juries still do sit.

Edit: some inquests too (eg Princess Diana)

 

[zaremba]

Didn't the Deputy Prime Minister there call the laws a International laughing stock a while back too?

Quite possibly. You'll be referring to either John Prescott or Nick Clegg, both of whom know a thing or two about laughing stocks.

English libel laws come in for a lot of stick, and basically for the reasons you've given. The laws favour the claimant far more than the laws elsewhere because most important burden of proof lies on the defendant, namely the burden of proving that what he published was true. Whether that's right or wrong is a matter of taste really - do you lean towards a person's right to free speech even where it may involve damaging someone's reputation with untruths? Or do you lean towards protecting people's reputations from unfair attack even where that might have a chilling effect on free speech?

The one point I don't think I accept is with regard to the size of the awards, which although not tiny are generally not enormous. Cairns got £90k which is pretty high as libel awards go. Compare that to the sort of awards you hear about in high-profile US tort cases and it's peanuts. The real money in a libel case is in the legal costs. The loser pays the winner's costs as well as his own, and if the winner's lawyers are acting on a "no win no fee" basis their costs will be uplifted (ie usually doubled). Reports are that Modi faces a total costs bill of about £1m which dwarfs the damages which he has to pay to Cairns.

 

[Zinzan]

So pleased the great all-rounder was able to clear his name.

It's amazing the lengths Modi & co went to try & implicate Cairns & it's especially humorous the judge didn't buy their story for a minute. Can only assume Modi paid them off to tell porkies.

 

[honestbharani]

I don't have a problem with the libel law ensuring the burden of proof lies with the one who is accusing.. I do think they can tighten up the way they let the winners claim money though..

 

[benchmark00]

Mud sticks.

 

[vic_orthdox]

Would more casual cricket followers have greater awareness now of Cairns being linked (albeit by others) to match fixing than before the trial?

 

[benchmark00]

Would more casual cricket followers have greater awareness now of Cairns being linked (albeit by others) to match fixing than before the trial?

Clearly.

 

[marc71178]

I don't have a problem with the libel law ensuring the burden of proof lies with the one who is accusing.. I do think they can tighten up the way they let the winners claim money though..

How do you mean? Cairns got £90k, which is hardly an earth-shattering amount.

 

[Zinzan]

How do you mean? Cairns got £90k, which is hardly an earth-shattering amount.

Exactly, and probably significantly less than he would have got if he'd been available to play IPL in seasons 09/10 assuming Modi didn't have this thing against him.