Plain English

[iconoclash]

I thought I heard that there had been recommendations to drop all the jargon in courts for Litigants in Person, particularly in Small Claims? I wonder then why a DJ recently allowed Ms Wilkinson, Barrister, to talk about Quantums and heads of claim in the small claims court. Might as well have the done the whole thing in Latin as far as the LIP is concerned !

 

And, since when have barristers starting trying to get legal costs in small claims on spurious grounds that IF a case had been taken as a private suit (?) under contract law they would be allowed it blah blah blah - taking the **** over and over, failing to supply their opponents with documents that wish to rely upon - using documents that have not been mentioned or submitted until sitting in Chambers - what a disgrace!

[MARTIN3030]

Retail loss Prevention springs to mind.

Mind you .......they all well versed on MagnaCarta !

[deano_uk]

ECHR Right to a fair trial?

Edited November 12, 2012 by deano_uk

[iconoclash]

thanks. still looking into various regs and rules but will follow up - too late for me but others can take heed at least

[iconoclash]

Another interesting item to look out for with Barristers when talking throughout a hearing about "Head of Claim":-

Recovering time as a head of damage

The cost of wasted staff time spent on investigating claims or mitigating loss can be recoverable as a specific category, or 'head', of damage, whether or not it can be shown that the time caused additional expenditure or loss of revenue or profit.

There is no distinction between the time spent by profit-making employees, such as sales staff, and non-profit making employees, such as support staff, provided that the time spent by the employees relates to the defendant's actions and minimising the effects of those actions. It is irrelevant that employees might not work fixed hours and can incorporate extra work on top of their existing job - for example, by working at weekends.

However, it has to be demonstrated with 'sufficient certainty' that this wasted time was indeed spent on investigating or minimising the effect of the defendant's actions. A claimant claiming wasted staff time must therefore show 'sufficient disruption to the business' and that 'staff have been significantly diverted from their usual activities'.

[MARTIN3030]

Yes in the Oxford case brought by A Retailer against 2 alleged shoplifters earlier this year,this point was clearly demonstrated as legal teams argued on it.

The Judge was not convinced that the costs being claimed by A Retailer,were claimable since they could not demonstrate severe disruption.

[iconoclash]

Martin - it would seem that claimant finance houses are trying to exaggerate their losses - however - in this case they brought a defective d/n into court twice! followed up by a late application and extra hearing ! The DJ did not allow all that anyway but I was interested in the whole manner of the barristers submissions and use of language. An overt assumption of right and attempt to 'ping' the brain - lol

[MARTIN3030]

Absolutely.