Author Topic: Pedestrian on the phone  (Read 5220 times)

caerau

  • SR x 3 - PBP fail but 1090 km - hey - not too bad
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #100 on: June 25, 2019, 04:27:40 pm »
I read yesterday that £110,000 was the amount he'd been required to pay in costs - and yes it's the costs of bringing the case - not the amount of compensation.  It's because he didn't countersue and was uninsured, as said - his team are indeed appealing this - it's this appeal that is being crowdfunded.


I'll see if I can re-track it down, though I think it just cropped up on my phone's newsfeed.
It's a reverse Elvis thing.

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #101 on: June 25, 2019, 06:30:10 pm »
Cyclingweekly is quoting a much smaller legal cost.  I am still confused as to whether he has to pay all the legal or half (as its 50-50 liability).  I would have assumed half based on the ruling.
[/I could be wrong]

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #102 on: June 25, 2019, 09:29:50 pm »
It seems mildly insane that a small case could cost £100k. I think there's a bit of bluffery. According to what I've read, costs have yet to be awarded and presumably, as far as I understand*, will be split.

*which I probably don't.
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #103 on: June 25, 2019, 10:42:11 pm »
I *believe* that costs are being talked about as *up to* £100k, but that the judge in the case was muttering about £10k, and presumably has the power to decide what will actually be awarded, so it's reasonable to assume that hisher award will be in line with hisher mutterings.

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #104 on: June 26, 2019, 12:11:56 am »
so it's reasonable to assume that his award will be in line with his mutterings.

Or, in this case, hers.

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #105 on: June 26, 2019, 12:17:50 am »
so it's reasonable to assume that his award will be in line with his mutterings.

Or, in this case, hers.

Indeed - apologies, and corrected.

(Lazy, lazy language on my part.)

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #106 on: June 26, 2019, 09:58:39 am »
So it looks like the £100k tag is just there to sell papers?
[/I could be wrong]

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #107 on: June 26, 2019, 10:01:22 am »
I think it's shock value.

But anyway, even at £10k, for £8k damages award cut by half, that's not exactly good value unless an insurance company is paying the bill.

I still they've have been better both learning from the experience and getting on with their lives (and I speak as someone who's experienced extensive legal dealings over an accident).
!nataS pihsroW

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #108 on: June 26, 2019, 02:07:14 pm »
The barrister for the claimant reports the costs in this twitter thread with Martin Porter:-

https://twitter.com/NyeMoloney/status/1143233029776842752

Martin Porter: "Thanks Nye. Are press reports of seeking £100k costs accurate? Thx."

Aneurin Moloney: "Something like £95k I think. A bit more to it here too; case had been run for 4 years, D was LiP for 3 years and living in France, 3 expert witnesses (and D submitted we should have used more), 2 day trial....."

...

Aneurin Moloney: "For completeness, I think that D’s own legal costs were in the region of £18,000. He had representation from October 2018 (i.e. 8 to 9 months) after the Defence had already been served."

(C = claimant, D = defendant)
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #109 on: June 26, 2019, 04:18:35 pm »
Blimey, £95k and four years (!) effort for a 2-day trial and £8k damage award (cut by half).

The legal world is weirder than I thought.

!nataS pihsroW

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #110 on: June 27, 2019, 12:21:53 pm »
100k still seems crazy.  If you hired someone on 25k for 4 years to do nothing but this case.  Surely the ~10 people involved in this don't get paid 10k each for the number of full days they actually spent on this case.
[/I could be wrong]

ian

  • fatuously disingenuous
    • The Suburban Survival Guide
Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #111 on: June 27, 2019, 01:14:42 pm »
To be fair, while it seems crazy to the layperson, it is at least cheaper and more effective than management consulting.
!nataS pihsroW

fd3

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #112 on: June 27, 2019, 10:55:45 pm »
Yeahbut management consultants get paid by big money companies.
[/I could be wrong]

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #113 on: August 14, 2019, 09:11:45 am »
I think this is a tragic case all round.
But a litigant in person is an idiot. I suspect most of the costs were from his delays and misunderstandings. 3 expert witnesses will have added a lot to the costs. There will have been at least a neurologist, a plastic surgeon and a a dental surgeon. Each of those would have charged £1k for their initial report plus costs for any other letters, conferences, etc. Then each of them would have been on £2.5k for each day in court. At a 2 day hearing you already have £20k in expert costs.

If he had used his household insurance this would have never reached court and been settled by in house lawyers for about £3k.

The claimant had offered to settle for less than she was finally awarded. That is why she got costs   If she had been awarded less than her part 36 offer she would have had to pay her solicitors costs.

Re: Pedestrian on the phone
« Reply #114 on: August 18, 2019, 01:48:26 pm »
Just in case people are not aware, this very busy crossing, on the northern side of Cannon Street at the juction of King William Street, hasn't got lights for pedestrians.

https://www.openstreetmap.org/#map=18/51.51110/-0.08700

this vid shows the crossing with the camera facing west:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8ywiHP8iyQ