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'.

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.

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?


Who cares?Â* Cocky careless cyclist got his comeuppance.Â* If only he
could be banned from the road as well.

It probably won't be long before she will get a Darwin award anyway.
Common sense is not one of her attributes.

--
Bod

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus