Latest news with #courtbattle
Yahoo
2 days ago
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
‘The Buccaneers' Season 2 Star Christina Hendricks & Creators Unpack Episode 7 Court Scenes Reflecting 'Modern-Day Rape Or Abuse Trials'
The Buccaneers. Just as there are many elaborate weddings in Apple TV+'s The Buccaneers, Season 2 has made way for some equally complex divorce proceedings, culminating in a court battle between Patricia 'Patti' St. George and her unfaithful husband Colonel Tracy St. George in Episode 7. More from Deadline 'The Buccaneers' Star Kristine Frøseth And Creators On 'Sweet' Episode 7 'Lover' Needle Drop: 'The Time For Taylor Swift Had Come' 'The Buccaneers' Creators Unpack That 'Heartbreaking' Death In Season 2 Episode 6: 'We Resisted It For A Long Time' Emmy-Nominated 'Slow Horses' Writer/EP Will Smith To Exit Show After Season 5; Reveals Emotional Farewell And His Dream Spin-Off Divorce during The Gilded Age, the period in which the show is set was only given permission on the grounds that there was adultery, and even then, there had to be evidence. HBO's The Gilded Age series tackles the same thing in Season 3, which is currently rolling out. 'We did a lot of research about how women had to prove that an infidelity had happened. They couldn't just say it, they had to prove it. In New York at the time, people would even hire people to come in and say that they'd slept with their husband just in order to get the evidence required,' executive producer Beth Willis told Deadline. 'So it was incredibly difficult, and the burden was absolutely on the wife. We'd thought that really reflected modern-day rape trials or abuse trials.' Willis also praised creator and executive producer Katherine Jakeways for her writing on the penultimate episode, titled 'All Rise,' in which Patti fights an uphill battle of proving her husband cheated on her while being made to feel shame herself and describe how she tried to satisfy him in the bedroom. 'Katherine rose to the challenge of getting under the skin of that and what that kind of humiliation would feel like for Mrs. St. George standing up there, doing something that, on paper, feels really straightforward and clear to her,' Willis added. 'Which is [saying], 'I've had enough, I want to move on with my life,' but [realizing] how hard it is to actually get permission to move on with your life. Christina Hendricks' performance in that episode is phenomenal.' Hendricks finds Patti's decision to demand a divorce after being unhappy in her marriage to Tracy 'fueled by wanting the best for her daughters.' 'It still probably originally comes out of being a symbol of something to show that she is acknowledging the pain that it caused with [Nell], and the pain that it could have caused between Nan and Jinny, but also being given the strength by watching them make choices and thinking, if I'm going to be the woman that I say, I've been to them and support them all along, I have to give them something to look up to,' the Mad Men actress said. 'So she still goes about it as sort of an offering, but eventually [she] is going to have to internalize that and think about what that really means for her and what her life is going to look like. She knows that it has to be done, but she's still terrified.' Tracy's lawyer Mr. McCarthy (Corey Johnson) does not make it easy on Patti, shaming her by asking for explicit details and scaring her witnesses out of taking the stand to declare that they were intimate with Mr. St. George. 'The detail that she's having to go into, like Beth says about it feeling like a modern rape trial, where she's being asked for details of her sex life, the balance of that was quite tricky to get right in terms of how much she talks about,' Jakeways said. 'But even having to give any detail of your sex life in those humiliating circumstances in front of a room full of strangers and your daughter and your family, she's so good in that scene, Christina. We're so proud of that episode and those scenes. And the lawyers are brilliant in those scenes as well. Corey, who played the main lawyer, the cross examiner, he was so good.' Leighton Meester's Eleanor 'Nell' Brooks, sister to Patti, complicates the process because at first, she just sits in the crowd to support her sister, but then Nan (Kristine Frøseth) demands that Nell come clean, reveal herself as Nan's biological mother and simultaneously confirm that Nan was a product of one of Tracy's affairs. Nell risks her unborn child, her relationship with Arthur (Anthony Welsh) and her reputation to reveal that she slept with Tracy, but her ability to provide physical evidence — letters detailing Tracy's correspondence with her, receipts and checks — helped clinch Patti the victory to be able to divorce her husband. 'For my character, it's more symbolic in terms of, taking the next step forward in so many ways. I cannot speak for Mrs. St George, but I do think that, from my point of view, their marriage was was never equal, and even though my actions highlighted that more than anything, I think I also desperately want to help Patti free herself from her current situation that she's found herself in for so so long,' Meester told Deadline. 'And even though I've been in my own form of secrecy, and pain there is almost a freedom to having made the choices that Nell made. Patti was left with all the responsibility, so I could see how Nell wants to help her ultimately, and take her side in a situation that's otherwise very dire, and in a time where the man has the last word, [Patti] has somewhere to go with Nell.' RELATED: Best of Deadline List Of Hollywood & Media Layoffs From Paramount To Warner Bros Discovery To CNN & More 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 2025-26 Awards Season Calendar: Dates For Emmys, Oscars, Grammys & More
BBC News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- BBC News
Stoke Lodge field campaigner told to pay £85,000 in legal costs
A campaigner has been ordered to pay £85,000 in legal bills after losing a court battle over who gets to use a playing Welham had been fighting for community access to a 23-acre green space used by Cotham School in June, the High Court ruled that Stoke Lodge playing field – which is being leased to the school by Bristol City Council - did not have to be council, which had been fighting the school alongside Ms Welham, has been ordered to pay legal bills of only £9,467. Both must pay by 28 July. Ms Welham said her costs would be paid by herself and members of the she and the council are now braced for further costs as the combined payments cover only 40% of the school's total legal bill. Cotham School was granted a 125-year lease on the land in 2011 due to lack of space on its inner city site three miles the school became involved in a dispute with residents after it put up a 6ft-high (2m) fence around the field in said it was forced to fence the site for safeguarding purposes for PE lessons, and due to out-of-control dogs and dog 2023, Bristol City Council voted to give the site "town green" status, and told the school it must share the playing field with the month, however, the move was revoked by a High Court Paul Matthews also ruled Bristol City Council and Ms Welham were liable to pay Cotham School's court Welham was denied permission to appeal. In a statement following the decision on legal bills, Cotham School said: "We welcome the recovery of public funds that were necessarily expended in protecting the school's playing field, which are required for our delivery of PE lessons."Ms Welham said the Stoke Lodge community was in "pure shock" at the division of the legal a statement, she said: "We are standing by our commitment and obligations, and I would like to emphasise that we hope that the money that is (unjustly, in my personal view) being required of me and my supporters, will be used to help mitigate any detriment to Cotham School pupils flowing from the effects of the school's repeated legal actions on its financial reserves."Finally, we as a community remain incandescently angry that our last accessible neighbourhood green space, that we love deeply, and which has been relied upon for many decades by the thousands of Bristol citizens who share it with Cotham School, is again in danger of not being protected as it should be."Our commitment to protect the land for future generations is undiminished." 'Chilling impact' A spokesperson for We Love Stoke Lodge residents' group, which campaigned alongside Ms Welham, told the BBC they were worried the judgement could have negative spokesperson said: "Despite the fact that the council was the first defendant in the litigation and was robustly defending a decision that the council itself had made, the court has ordered significant costs against the community."We believe this allocation could have a chilling impact on other community groups seeking to defend important matters of principle."The group said it would be seeking permission to appeal directly from the Court of Appeal, and said it has been given until mid-September to make an City Council declined to comment but said it would be complying with the court order.
Telegraph
09-07-2025
- Health
- Telegraph
Woman ‘wastes' £100k inheritance on court battle to live in family home
A former NHS worker faces losing her entire inheritance after a 'wasteful' court battle over her late mother's £420,000 home. Sharon Duggan, 49, was left a third share of her mother's home after she died but said she should be allowed to stay in the property, claiming she needed the house for her and her emotional support dogs. Ms Duggan is suing Ann and Brenda, her sisters, and has claimed she need to live at their mother's house in Crawley, West Sussex, because she is too 'hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive' to live in a noisy flat. However, her case was kicked out at Central London county court last month, and she now faces having to pay all the lawyers' bills for the dispute. Judge Alan Johns KC said the 'grim reality' was that the costs of the legal battle would be 'highly likely' to wipe out the share of her mother's estate that Ms Duggan is rightfully due. 'This marks a sad end to a sad case,' he said. 'It is likely that Sharon will be left with nothing of the £100,000 or more that otherwise would have been her inheritance. That is the heavy price to be paid by her for pursuing this litigation to trial.' Too sensitive for flat life Agnes Duggan died at the age of 78 in August 2018 and left her house to be split equally between her three daughters – Ann, the oldest sister, Sharon, a former NHS medical secretary, and Brenda, an alternative therapist. But Sharon – who told a judge she 'is dyslexic and suffers from a variety of health issues, including chronic fatigue syndrome, migraine, fibromyalgia, depression, anxiety, insomnia, PTSD, and Adjustment Disorder, [and] also has long Covid' – claimed the house for herself and her rescue dogs, saying she was too sensitive for life in a flat. She told the court that downsizing to a flat would be too much for her, telling the court: 'I have two dogs to consider and I am hyper-vigilant and sound-sensitive.' She sued her two sisters under the Inheritance Act 1975, claiming her medical ailments and sensitivity to noise meant she should get at least a life interest, or permission to reside in the property. Although Ann remained neutral in the dispute, Brenda fought the case and won. Giving judgment last month, Judge Johns accepted that Sharon has 'particular issues' but ultimately ruled that a flat still be 'suitable' accommodation for her. Returning to court to decide who should pay the costs of the trial, lawyers for Brenda and for their mother's estate argued that neither should be left out of pocket when it was Sharon who brought the case. 'Extremely wasteful' Alex Findlay, Brenda's barrister, told the judge that offers had been made to Sharon pre-trial that would have seen her receive extra money, but she had refused. 'This has been extremely wasteful and expensive litigation, to say nothing of the stress,' he added. Giving judgment, Judge Johns said: 'It is submitted that Sharon should not be allowed to walk away without any costs order being made – I agree.' He ordered that she pay the lawyers' bills of both Brenda and their mother's estate, with the sums to be assessed at a later date, but estimated at over the £100,000-plus she is set to inherit. 'The grim reality of this litigation is likely to be that all of Sharon's share will be burned up by the costs, so she will end up with nothing,' he added.
CTV News
03-07-2025
- CTV News
‘It's still Sauble Beach' - Sauble Beach sign changed to ‘Saugeen Beach' by Indigenous group
Sauble Beach's iconic main street sign has been changed to read 'Saugeen Beach' by members of the Saugeen First Nation, the owners of the beach. July 3, 2025. (Scott Miller/CTV News London) Visitors to Sauble Beach are having a double take today as the iconic sign that greets tourists, which used to say Sauble Beach, was changed Monday night. 'My son showed me the picture he took, and I said, what the heck happened. What is happening here?' said Suzanne, from Hanover, who was seeing the sign change for the first time today. On the eve of Canada Day, members of the Saugeen First Nation changed the sign at the end of the Sauble Beach's main street from 'Welcome to Sauble Beach' to 'Welcome to Saugeen Beach.' 070325 Sauble Beach's iconic main street sign in June 2023. (Scott Miller/CTV News London) 'It's obviously been decades in the making. We've had a lot of struggles. And I feel like finally, we can put our name on it,' said Saugeen First Nation councillor, Cheree Urscheler. Following a nearly 30 year court battle, the Saugeen First Nation had ownership of nearly 2.5 km's of Sauble Beach's valuable sand, returned to them, in April 2023. Following multiple appeals by the previous owners, the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, the decision to return ownership of Sauble's sand to the Saugeen First Nation was upheld in December 2024. A change to Sauble's sign was supposed to happen earlier this summer, but it was decided to hold off until the eve of Canada Day. 'The timing, I think, for me personally, the timing is perfect. It's a statement,' said Saugeen First Nation councillor, Sonya Roote. The sign change caught many off guard, including the Town of South Bruce Peninsula, who didn't know the Sauble sign was coming down and the Saugeen sign was going up until it happened. 'The Sauble Beach sign is a well-known landmark with deep meaning for many people,' says South Bruce Peninsula Mayor Jay Kirkland. 'While we respect Saugeen First Nation's right to make changes on their land, we believe open communication is important, especially when it involves something so symbolic to the broader community. We remain committed to respectful dialogue and working together in the spirit of mutual understanding,' continues Kirkland. While many Sauble Beach visitors CTV News spoke to today hadn't even noticed to sign name change, those that did notice have mixed opinions about it. 'It was disappointing and it was surprising, just because I don't think many people knew that it was coming. And, you know, just to show up on July 1st and see the sign has been changed on the beach, I think a lot of people are just in disbelief,' says Suzanne from Hanover. 'I'm really glad that they did it, because like everyone knows it as Sauble Beach, when it isn't actually, it's Saugeen Beach, and I think people should know that,' said Anouska and her family visiting from Hamilton. 070325 A section of beach formally known as Sauble Beach, now called Saugeen Beach. (Scott Miller/CTV News London The sign change at the beachfront from 'Sauble Beach' to 'Saugeen Beach' is more symbolic than anything, said Saugeen First Nation councillors, Roote and Urscheler. The town itself is still called Sauble Beach, and that's still what will show up on everyone's GPS, when they plan their visit to the sand and waters, clearly owned by the Saugeen First Nation. 'To everybody, it'll still be Sauble Beach. The town is still Sauble Beach. It's just, this part of the beach is Saugeen First Nation. That's all,' says Saugeen First Nation councillor, Lester Anoquot. 'I understand people saying, it's iconic and we grew up with it, I grew up with as Sauble Beach as well. But, it would have been nice to grow up with it being Saugeen Beach the whole time, right? Which it should have been. So I mean, there's a lot of years it was the wrong name put on the beach, so I think, I think it's time,' said Councillor Roote. 'Forever, it's always been Sauble Beach and forever in my mind, it's not. And it was kind of hurtful to see that, and to know that, behind the scenes, we've always been trying to get it back. So to see it now, yeah, my heart is smiling,' said Councillor Urscheler.
Daily Mail
21-06-2025
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Blake Lively sends out new subpoenas in legal battle with Justin Baldoni
Blake Lively is currently wrapped up in a nasty court battle with her It Ends With Us costar and director Justin Baldoni. New legal documents obtained by reveal that the actress, 37, has filed motions to compel subpoenas from multiple executives at Baldoni's, 41, production company Wayfarer. According to the paperwork, Blake initially served third-party subpoenas in March, and is now asking the court to enforce them. The eight executives listed are Ashmi Elizabeth Dang, Ahmed Musiol, Mitz Toskovic, Tera Hanks, AJ Marbory, Jennifer Benson, Shekinah Reese, and Jarriesse Blackmon. Lively and Baldoni butted heads while filming the romantic drama last year, and things turned litigious in December when the Gossip Girl alum sued the actor for alleged sexual harassing and engineering a retaliatory smear campaign against her. Earlier this week Lively suffered a setback in the case when a New York judge denied her attorneys' application for a protective order seeking to block her text messages with Taylor Swift from being entered as evidence. Baldoni's team has subpoenaed Lively for text messages, emails and any other messages between herself and the singer. The Jane The Virgin actor's lawyers will now be allowed to pore through the text trail, with all communications related to It Ends With Us set for scrutiny. In one embarrassing text exchange, Lively appeared to refer to herself as the Game of Thrones character Khaleesi, and to Swift as one of her 'dragons.' Elsewhere in Baldoni's filing is the claim that Swift was present at a meeting convened by Lively at her New York penthouse to discuss It Ends With Us script changes. Sources close to Swift insisted the singer had no knowledge of the meeting and simply arrived to find it underway. The situation reportedly left Swift — who is godmother to Lively's three daughters — feeling 'exploited' by her friend of ten years. Six months ago Blake outlined work opportunities that she allegedly missed out on due to Baldoni in her explosive lawsuit against him. One of the missed work gigs listed was hosting the season 50 premiere of Saturday Night Live in September, which aired the month after the film was released. Earlier this week Lively suffered a setback in the case when a New York judge denied her attorneys' application for a protective order seeking to block her text messages with Taylor Swift from being entered as evidence; the former friends pictured in February 2024 'The effects on Ms. Lively's professional life were immediate and substantial,' said the suit. 'Given the ongoing nature of the campaign and the associated negative public sentiment, Ms. Lively did not believe she could proceed with public appearances or events without being forced to openly discuss what happened on set,' the filing stated. Baldoni hit back in January with a $400 million countersuit accusing Lively and her husband Ryan Reynolds of defamation. All parties have denied the allegations. Last week, the defamation element of Baldoni's lawsuit was thrown out by a judge, although he is still suing for civil extortion and invasion of privacy among other claims. But contained in Baldoni's filing were screenshots of alleged text messages, in which Lively regularly mentioned Swift by name.
