In the news

You are reading a single comment by @SwissChap and its replies. Click here to read the full conversation.

•

ffm in reply to @abr

not to the extent where he deserves to pay £100k in legal fees for an accident where the blame was apportioned equally (IMO).

That was due to a quirk of the legal system though wasn't it? As I understand it, the pedestrian entered a claim, he could equally validly entered a counterclaim, which would have balanced it, but he didn't. Therefore when her claim was found to be valid (or whatever the correct term is) he ended up on the hook for a heap of cash, despite the fault having been found as 50:50.

•

SwissChap in reply to @ffm

The problem that I see there: so the whole process cost her a pretty penny, judging by the amount she's apparently claiming back from him, right?

So if he had counter-sued, those process cost would just have been doubled overall, meaning both are just out of pocket more? How is that beneficial to anyone? Apart from the lawyers, obviously.

•

ffm in reply to @SwissChap

I think (and IANA lawyer) that the claim was for damages and costs already incurred. He could have claimed on the same basis, so the net cost in either direction would have been minimal, and the increase in process costs likwise, small.

About

Avatar for SwissChap @SwissChap started