View Single Post
  #24  
Old June 22nd 19, 05:51 PM posted to uk.rec.cycling
Peter Parry
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,164
Default So what about his much-vaunted household contents insurance?

On Sat, 22 Jun 2019 15:38:26 +0100, Modesty
wrote:


So the cyclist's exposure to the vast costs involved in this case
could likely have been avoided had he been legally represented at the
start of the proceedings when he would, presumably, have been advised
to make a counter claim regardless of his dislike of the 'claims
culture'.


His exposure to costs could almost certainly have been reduced
dramatically had his (had he had one) and the claimants solicitors
communicated with each other at an early stage.

Why he didn't seek (or possibly listen) to legal advice early on
isn't clear. This case has been kicking around for several years
which is in itself very unusual when the damages expected to be paid
would only have been in the low thousands of pounds. It also seems
that during his self representation in court he acted in some
undefined way which increased the costs by his ignorance of procedure.
This is unusual in itself as judges usually do all they can to help
litigants in person. Possibly more may come out in the costs hearing.
(Why a separate costs hearing is taking place for a low value claim is
itself a bit puzzling, normally it would take a few minutes at the end
of the main hearing).

Even though the pedestrian was 50% to blame for the collision she
decided to take a chance and sue the cyclist for damages. He never put
in a counter claim, so her legal team proceeded and took advantage of
his naivety. This has resulted in him being liable to pay a very large
legal bill, as well as her damages.


It isn't mentioned anywhere I can see that this was a conditional fee
case in which case the claimant has little risk but I would guess it
is. There is also no doubt she was injured and (at least) had to pay
for dental treatment and Hazeldean was partially responsible so the
claim was reasonable. This would probably have been the advice any
solicitor would have given him at the beginning. I doubt if anyone
took advantage of any possible naivety. Perhaps stubborn refusal to
believe it wasn't his fault at all caused him to continue long beyond
the point where it was sensible to do so. This isn't unusual with
litigants in person.

Had he put in a counterclaim and had they suffered equal injury, then
each case may have more or less effectively cancelled each other out.
As the potential damages win would have been relatively small and the
costs so very high, how likely is it that both parties would have
agreed not to proceed?


I'd guess this would have been what any solicitor would have said. The
very high costs are puzzling. The claimants solicitors would have
been entitled to an enhanced fee if it was a conditional fee case but
nowhere near the level now being claimed. It also isn't obvious how
the case went on for 3 or 4 years when it wasn't very complicated, the
main facts were not in dispute and it wasn't going to set any
precedent.

Ads
 

Home - Home - Home - Home - Home