so does this mean the whole thing went nowhere
so does this mean the whole thing went nowhere
I'm no legal expert but from asking around a bit, I think it likely means there was some sort of settlement and adding the 'with prejudice' as part of the settlement so the case would end here. Steyn's lawyer could have requested it to be dismissed without that part if he just wanted to drop it.
Yeah Moz came him a bag of crisps and a signed copy of 'Roy's Keen' and told him to f*** off. Steyn realizing he didn't have a leg to stand on gladly accepted and disappeared into the stratosphere.
Yeah Moz came him a bag of crisps and a signed copy of 'Roy's Keen' and told him to f*** off. Steyn realizing he didn't have a leg to stand on gladly accepted and disappeared into the stratosphere.
We just don't know what the terms are at this point and likely never will if there is a confidentiality agreement. It's possible it went the other way or something in between, the preference seems to be for it to go away and the terms kept as quiet as possible.
I'm a California attorney, "with prejudice" means that the case is resolved and the plaintiff cannot file another suit based upon the same or similar facts. It would only be dismissed "with prejudice" if there was a settlement. Otherwise, the plaintiff would dismiss it "without prejudice" (i.e. he can file again within the statute of limitations). Who knows how much the settlement was for or who paid it. Moz could have had an insurance company who decided to settle it to avoid legal costs or if they believed there was some exposure to liability. But we are likely to hear nothing about the result absent a leak because there will be a confidentiality clause. Final note, a settlement does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had anything real to complain about. Companies and individuals settle all of the time, because of the cost to fight and whether the evidence seems to support the plaintiff's complaint (even though the "real" facts do not).
I'm a California attorney, "with prejudice" means that the case is resolved and the plaintiff cannot file another suit based upon the same or similar facts. It would only be dismissed "with prejudice" if there was a settlement. Otherwise, the plaintiff would dismiss it "without prejudice" (i.e. he can file again within the statute of limitations). Who knows how much the settlement was for or who paid it. Moz could have had an insurance company who decided to settle it to avoid legal costs or if they believed there was some exposure to liability. But we are likely to hear nothing about the result absent a leak because there will be a confidentiality clause. Final note, a settlement does not necessarily mean that the plaintiff had anything real to complain about. Companies and individuals settle all of the time, because of the cost to fight and whether the evidence seems to support the plaintiff's complaint (even though the "real" facts do not).
Well David, with a bit of luck, it will have scared Morrissey, and now he'll stop rambling drunkenly about you and this site like some would-be Crime boss (I think he'd like to of been Ronnie Kray), for his entourage's benefit, poolside.
...Or poodleside, rather. ROFL.
What's that, Mafiassey?
"-Parlaaa piuuu pianooo..."
Yeah, go hurt yourself, you pathetic pinhead.
But, you know, Morrissey STILL wonders why things go terribly, terribly wrong, sometimes. He simply can't connect the dots -connecting with dolts, now that, he can... -
Don't worry David, even if you never know the truth, personally I won't forget, that or the ban. Only in Morrissey's little world does it ever just "go away." And I don't live in it.
(No it's not a nightmare, Morrissey, it's the internet. No, you can't "fire it". No, you can't fire that either. No, pretty sure you can't fire anything, actually. Yes, it is sad.)
I'm no legal expert but from asking around a bit, I think it likely means there was some sort of settlement and adding the 'with prejudice' as part of the settlement so the case would end here. Steyn's lawyer could have requested it to be dismissed without that part if he just wanted to drop it.
Well David, with a bit of luck, it will have scared Morrissey, and now he'll stop rambling drunkenly about you and this site like some would-be Crime boss (I think he'd like to of been Ronnie Kray), for his entourage's benefit, poolside.
...Or poodleside, rather. ROFL.
What's that, Mafiassey?
"-Parlaaa piuuu pianooo..."
Yeah, go hurt yourself, you pathetic pinhead.
But, you know, Morrissey STILL wonders why things go terribly, terribly wrong, sometimes. He simply can't connect the dots -connecting with dolts, now that, he can... -
Don't worry David, even if you never know the truth, personally I won't forget, that or the ban. Only in Morrissey's little world does it ever just "go away." And I don't live in it.
(No it's not a nightmare, Morrissey, it's the internet. No, you can't "fire it". No, you can't fire that either. No, pretty sure you can't fire anything, actually. Yes, it is sad.)
A simple google search clarifies futher:
with prejudice could indicate either misconduct on the part of the party who filed the claim or criminal complaint or could be the result of an out of court agreement or settlement, both of which would forbid that party from refiling the case.
So "with prejudice" could just as easily indiacate misconduct by Steyn rather than a settlement of any kind. I would even suggest given the nature of the wild allegations that this is more likely than a settlement. Perhaps he missed a deadline or didn't follow a process.
But will the prejudice keep him warm at night?
They don't call him 'Silly Steven' for nothing you know ! Judge Weeks had three other names for him and they have stuck like shit to a blanket.
Solo 1 CrankFraud 0
How can someone so vegan sing the songs at F Y F FESTIVAL ?
Steven take a Steven take a bow
And boot the crime of this world in the crotch dear !
4ck Tosserrey t-shirt anyone ?
Benny-the-British-Butcher