Many people have their lives ruined or at least seriously disrupted by litigation. Consider these three cases.
Last year, shopkeeper Damian Markland won a lawsuit against a Porsche dealership. He sued them over shoddy repair work to his car, and while he won his case, he nevertheless found himself liable to meet the legal costs on both sides. He was financially ruined, even though he had technically won.
I will not comment on the points of fact or of law in the case, but Mr Markland did not need to bring his lawsuit. Furthermore he did not need to buy a Porsche in the first place. He could easily have bought a perfectly good car for far less money.
More recently, retired football player Malcolm White lost a lawsuit brought against him by a woman who injured herself when she stumbled over a wooden sign on a grass verge. His bill, including legal costs, is reported to be in excess of £27,000.
One of the comments on this news report is from someone who was awarded in the region of £3,000 in respect of injuries which appear to have been far more serious than those suffered by Miss Grady. Nevertheless Miss Grady is presumably not responsible for how much money she was awarded.
It was not necessary to put the sign on the grass verge. I am quite prepared to believe that people parked inconsiderately. It is common behaviour on streets where there is a primary school. Nevertheless the residents of South Hykeham could have raised the matter with their local authority. Maybe they did, but maybe the people of Lincolnshire are not in the habit of electing politicians who actually care about them.
It is not clear whether or not there was any attempt by either party to resolve the matter without going to court. Ideally the dispute should have been settled with a small payment and no legal bill.
Some readers may regard my point of view as defeatist. You are perhaps thinking that if you bring a lawsuit against me, then presumably by my own reasoning I should pay you some money to avoid the matter going any further.
In the abstract that argument may seem powerful, but exactly what lawsuit are you planning to bring against me? For example, there is no wooden sign outside my house for you to trip over.
I have long been of the opinion that the first rule of litigation is that you can never be certain of the outcome. Miss Grady could have lost her lawsuit against Mr White, in which case she would have ended up with the legal bill.
The third case is the one I find most disturbing. Andrea Calland was financially ruined by a lawsuit brought by her ex-husband's mother Evelyn Galloway. The lawsuit centred on which one of them owned a vase which turned out to be valuable.
There is some dispute between the two parties about the exact facts of the case, but it appears that Mrs Galloway brought the lawsuit, although she blames Mrs Calland for the lawsuit. It appears also that an attempt was made by the two parties to agree a settlement, and Mrs Galloway blames Mrs Callard for the failure to reach a settlement.
While Mrs Galloway won the lawsuit, the outcome could have been very different.
It appears that the vase was ultimately stolen from the Emperor of China in 1860, but neither Mrs Galloway or Mrs Callard seem eager to discuss that particular point.
I find this case disturbing because I have ornaments in my home which I cannot recall either buying or receiving as a gift. In fact I even have some items of furniture which I cannot recall buying. Surely any one of us could at some point in time find ourselves in a dispute with a family member over ownership of an ornament or item of furniture.
I currently have no plans to bring any lawsuits against anyone else, and I hope that no one will ever bring a lawsuit against me. Maybe the government should bring in legislation aimed at discouraging people from bringing lawsuits, but of course the people who bring lawsuits are clearly not discouraged either by the prospect of losing or by the prospect of the other party losing.
A related previous post is:
Jet2 at the High Court
No comments:
Post a Comment