In message <44242C9C.30501(a)telus.net>et>, Ray Saintonge
<saintonge-EynCeXvFgoheoWH0uzbU5w(a)public.gmane.org> writes
slimvirgin-Re5JQEeQqe8AvxtiuMwx3w(a)public.gmane.org
wrote:
Interesting ruling from the High Court in England,
which could have
implications for our talk pages.
http://technology.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1737001,00.html
What makes this case less important is that the defendant failed to
defend the case, and the result was in effect a default judgement.
Or else her solicitor may have advised her that there simply /was/ no
defence, and to try to contest it would simply have incurred large
amounts of further legal expenses which she would have to pay (remember
- she would have to pay both her own legal expenses and the
plaintiff's).
--
Arwel Parry
http://www.cartref.demon.co.uk/