what does this mean >

[tris-]

"private litigation"

google define doesnt have fuck all entries for it.

 

[CorNokZ]

Means peeing into the wind while no one watches

 

[Fafnir]

Hmmm unsure really, but i think it got something to do with when two parties can settle a lawsuit out of court or something, then they can have a private litigation with lawyers and stuff. Since all cases dont have to go to court.

 

[old.Tohtori]

Isn't it simply someone using a law firm instead of government ligitation?

Basically you hiring someone to do your ligitation?

 

[Aoami]

Private Litigation is Litigation that doesn't go through the Courts.

 

[Tilda]

Its either people suing or thinking about suing, but settling out of course (ie off the public record)
or
litigation in the courts, but due to the contents, its privately listed so no details are allowed out etc.

Whats the context?

 

[Binky the Bomb]

Cunnilingus done in private?

 

[tris-]

Its either people suing or thinking about suing, but settling out of course (ie off the public record)
or
litigation in the courts, but due to the contents, its privately listed so no details are allowed out etc.

Whats the context?

publishing photos of zeta jones and micky douglas. private litigation is covered by article 8 of the human rights act.

 

[Aoami]

No it isn't. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is about the right to keep your private life private. Nothing to do with Litigation.

 

[tris-]

No it isn't. Article 8 of the Human Rights Act is about the right to keep your private life private. Nothing to do with Litigation.

what do you mean no it isnt?
the outcome of the case is that private litigation is covered by article 8.
are you saying the judge was wrong?

i just didnt know what private litigation was.

 

[Aoami]

Yeah. When was the judgement handed down?

 

[Iceforge]

Well, isn't it possible that the litigation is kept private, due to the human rights article 8 gives one the right to keep ones private life private and it would not be kept private if the litigation was public?

 

[Aoami]

That would make sense! It wouldn't techincally be private litigation that way. When a case goes to court the judge has the power to make the case private, or a 'public intrest' case. Private Litigation is something different.

 

[Laddey]

Jesus, theres some clever fuckers in FH.

I feel out of place The cleverest thing i can do is wank with two hands.

 

[Golena]

Pics or it didn't happen!

Actually seems appropriate in this case..

Edit: I wrote that before Laddey's reply.. There's somethings I don't need pics of!!!!!

 

[tris-]

Yeah. When was the judgement handed down?

lol.
so the judge, whos opinion is the only one that matters in law, is wrong?

 

[Tilda]

Tris, basically that case decided that you can apply human rights to civil law (ie not criminal law).

Its been decided for ages that criminal law can use human rights, ie, you cant violate HR's when investigating crime/arresting/detaining/prosecuting people.
Doughlas & Zeta Jones decided than you can apply HR (ie A8 right to family life) to a civil law context, ie, the publication of photos.
While you might not "normally" get an injunction for publishing pictures of a wedding, when you apply HRA too, then all of a sudden its ok.
So in this context private litigation is two individuals suing each other, rather than the government prosecuting someone.

 

[Aoami]

lol.
so the judge, whos opinion is the only one that matters in law, is wrong?

What i was saying is that it might be an old case, and the rulings have changed since, thats all.

 

[Tilda]

Nope, its still current law Aoami

 

[Mey]

Has it been backed by legislative statutes or is it just apart of Common Law still?

 

[Tilda]

Its still just common law but it was a court of appeal decision so its unlikley to get changed as it was fairly sensible.
If the gov tried to reverse it with statute the courts would just ignore it and issue a declaration of incompatibility (which they can do re human rights).
Point is, its not going anywhere.