Katie Hopkins

[Notch7]

How much were Monroes legal fees and how much did Hopkins pay? Do you know?

Katie Hopkins files for individual voluntary arrangement 'to avoid bankruptcy' after losing thousands in libel damages to food writer Jack Monroe

Katie Hopkins has filed for an individual voluntary arrangement, reportedly to avoid bankruptcy after losing a major libel case to food writer Jack Monroe. The former Mail Online columnist and LBC presenter was told to pay £24,000 in libel damages and £107,000 in legal costs to author Monroe...

pressgazette.co.uk

I wonder what is meant by will not be paid in full.

strawman argument

you said she used an IVA to get off without paying, but the truth is she used an IVA to avoid bankruptcy, as she didnt have the funds to pay

classic strawman, a logical fallacy you use ad nauseum

 

[Notch7]

But Hopkins own legal costs were reported to be more than twice that of Monroe's

thats the cost of arrogance

 

[Deleted member 323070]

It's all a bit confusing.
Monroe was awarded legal costs of £107,000, but I don't think that was all her legal costs.
Both parties had CFAs. Buy we don't know the terms or how much legal costs they covered.

The Monroe CFA would not have been agreed with Hopkins, therefore Hopkins would have been liable for Monroe's legal fees.
Hopkins lost, and there is no indication that she had a CFA in place with her legal team.
Therefore she would have been liable for a significant portion of Monroe's costs and her own.
So discussion of a CFA is an irrelevant diversion.

there is no indication that Katie Hopkins had a Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA) in her case against Jack Monroe. The legal documents and reports on the case, Monroe v Hopkins, highlight that it was Monroe who had a CFA with a success fee. Hopkins was ordered to pay a significant amount towards Monroe's legal costs, which were estimated to exceed £300,000.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

you said she used an IVA to get off without paying, but the truth is she used an IVA to avoid bankruptcy, as she didnt have the funds to pay

Precisely. An IVA does not absolve the debtor of their debts. It is an agreement for a planned payment of those debts.

 

[MNW67]

So discussion of a CFA is an irrelevant diversion.

From what?

I am just interested!

 

[Deleted member 323070]

From what?

I am just interested!

From the overall outcome.
Hopkins did not have a CFA in place. Even if she did, she would still have been liable to pay Monroe's legal fees, because any CFA only covers the client and their legal representation. It does not cover their opponents legal fees.
Monroe did have a CFA in place, but as she won, that CFA is irrelevant.

 

[MNW67]

From the overall outcome.
Hopkins did not have a CFA in place. Even if she did, she would still have been liable to pay Monroe's legal fees, because any CFA only covers the client and their legal representation. It does not cover their opponents legal fees.
Monroe did have a CFA in place, but as she won, that CFA is irrelevant.

I despise Katie Hopkins and I am glad she lost. I am not trying to create any sort of diversion.
JM's lawyer said both sides had CFAs. But they don't normally cover all the costs. We don't know the terms of JM's CFA. She was awarded £107,000 costs but her actual costs were much higher. Was the shortfall covered by the CFA.

 

[motorbiking]

Is there any way of telling from the insolvency register?

It might be something to do with how CFAs work.

It’s a public register you can search:

Search the bankruptcy and insolvency register

Search the Individual Insolvency Register for details about bankruptcy orders, Debt Relief Orders, Individual Voluntary Arrangements, and restrictions orders and undertakings

www.gov.uk

But you wont find IVA's which have been satisfied. They are removed after 3 months.
Indeed CFAs are not no win no fee. You have to follow the advice of your legal team.

strawman argument

you said she used an IVA to get off without paying, but the truth is she used an IVA to avoid bankruptcy, as she didnt have the funds to pay

classic strawman, a logical fallacy you use ad nauseum

Nonsense - standard Notchy MO, "it's a strawman."

and of course "you said she used an IVA to get off without paying" is not at all what I said.

I despise Katie Hopkins and I am glad she lost. I am not trying to create any sort of diversion.
JM's lawyer said both sides had CFAs. But they don't normally cover all the costs. We don't know the terms of JM's CFA. She was awarded £107,000 costs but her actual costs were much higher. Was the shortfall covered by the CFA.

Himmy can guess all he likes about IVAs and CFAs. Just because someone had to pay their own legal fees, does not mean they did not have a CFA in place. The fees all carry interest and arrangement fees which can easily double the costs if you breach the terms.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

JM's lawyer said both sides had CFAs.

Did they?

But they don't normally cover all the costs. We don't know the terms of JM's CFA. She was awarded £107,000 costs but her actual costs were much higher. Was the shortfall covered by the CFA.

I suggest you request that answer from your informant as your first sentence in this comment, suggests you have access to detailed information on the judgement.

 

[Deleted member 323070]

It’s a public register you can search:

Search the bankruptcy and insolvency register

Search the Individual Insolvency Register for details about bankruptcy orders, Debt Relief Orders, Individual Voluntary Arrangements, and restrictions orders and undertakings

www.gov.uk

But you wont find IVA's which have been satisfied. They are removed after 3 months.

As neither Katie Hopkins, nor Jack Monroe appear on the register, by your comment, we must assume that they were never in place, or have been satisfied.
We know from media reports that Hopkins did have a IVA, and Monroe didn't.

Indeed CFAs are not no win no fee. You have to follow the advice of your legal team.

They are basically a no win - no fee agreement. Any applicable small print is peculiar to each agreement.

and of course "you said she used an IVA to get off without paying" is not at all what I said.

A CFA does not absolve the debtor of their debts. It merely allows an agreed payment plan, and possibly an absolvement of some of the debt, in agreement with the creditor.

Just because someone had to pay their own legal fees, does not mean they did not have a CFA in place.

Who said it did? I said that a CFA does not absolve the loser of paying their opponent's legal fees.
And a CFA may not cover all one's legal fees.

The fees all carry interest and arrangement fees which can easily double the costs if you breach the terms.

No-one has suggested anything to the contrary.
The Admin fees for the Insolvency Practitioner (IP) are also payable by the person setting up the IVA.
Of course any breach of terms will increase the costs.

 

[MNW67]

judgement

judgment

 

[Deleted member 323070]

judgment

In American English.
In UK English, it's judgement.
We're in UK, so I'll speak/write in UK English.

 

[MNW67]

In American English.
In UK English, it's judgement.
We're in UK, so I'll speak/write in UK English.

Court cases are different:

 

[Deleted member 323070]

Court cases are different:

View attachment 380173

We're not in court.
And it's a bit of a cop-out if you want to divert the discussion from you requesting information from your well informed source, to a discussion of UK versus American spelling of words.

 

[motorbiking]

Google seems to be doing a lot of heavy lifting for Himmy. I'll answer your question.

From what?

I am just interested!

Hopkins was rather unlucky as well as stupid ( and nasty). The whole CFA framework for Defemation cases was overhauled just a few months later. Recoverable success fees were scrapped 6 April 2019. Up until that point the law firm mounting the claim or defence could charge enhanced fees for a win, to mitigate the risk of being paid not much for a loss.