Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Oh I see! thats confusing, for some reason the terms and conditions that Evri posted in that threads witness statement are slightly different than the t&cs on packlinks website. Their one says enter into a contract with the transport agency, but the website one says enter into a contract with paclink. via website: (c) Each User will enter into a contract with Packlink for the delivery of its Goods through the chosen Transport Agency. via evri witness statement in that thread: (c) Each User shall then enter into its own contract with the chosen Transport Agency. Packlink does not have any control over, and disclaims all liability that may arise in contracts between a User and a Transport Agency I read your post at #251, so I should use the second one (and changing the screenshot in the court bundle), since I am saying I have a contract with Evri? Is that correct EDIT: Oh I understand the rest of your conversation. you're saying if I was to do this i would have to fully adjust my ws to use the consumer rights act instead of rights of third parties. In that case should I just edit the terms and stick with the third parties plan?. And potentially if needed just bring up the CRA in the hearing, as you guys did in that thread  
    • First, those are the wrong terms,  read posts 240-250 of the thread ive linked to Second donough v stevenson should be more expanded. You should make refernece to the three fold duty of care test as well. Use below as guidance: The Defendant failed its duty of care to the Claimant. As found in Donoghue v Stevenson negligence is distinct and separate to any breach of contract. Furthermore, as held in the same case there need not be a contract between the Claimant and the Defendant for a duty to be established, which in the case of the Claimant on this occasion is the Defendant’s duty of care to the Claimant’s parcel whilst it is in their possession. By losing the Claimant’s parcel the Defendant has acted negligently and breached this duty of care. As such the Claimant avers that even if it is found that the Defendant not be liable in other ways, by means of breach of contract, should the court find there is no contract between Claimant and Defendant, the Claimant would still have rise to a claim on the grounds of the Defendant’s negligence and breach of duty of care to his parcel whilst it was in the Defendant’s possession, as there need not be a contract to give rise to a claim for breach of duty of care.  The court’s attention is further drawn to Caparo Industries plc v Dickman (1990), 2 AC 605 in which a three fold test was used to determine if a duty of care existed. The test required that: (i) Harm must be a reasonably foreseeable result of the defendant’s conduct; (ii) A relationship of proximity must exist and (iii) It must be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability.  
    • Thank you. here's the changes I made 1) removed indexed statement of truth 2) added donough v Stevenson in paragraph 40, just under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 paragraph about reasonable care and skill. i'm assuming this is a good place for it? 3) reworded paragraph 16 (now paragraph 12), and moved the t&cs paragraphs below it then. unless I understood you wrong it seems to fit well. or did you want me to remove the t&cs paragraphs entirely? attached is the updated draft, and thanks again for the help. WS and court bundle-1 fourth draft redacted.pdf
  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 162 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

No win no fee advice


Andy111
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2349 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

In short, my child was involved in an accident on a bus when with the mother resulting in a moderate injury to the child. Mother decides to go and see a no win no fee solicitor to see what they think, for which they are willing to take the case on.

 

A load of confusing paperwork has turned up including the Conditional Fee Agreement (CFA). In short the CFA states what IS covered under the agreement is: claim for damages, any application for pre-action or non party disclosure, any appeal by opponent, any appeal against an interim order or an assessment of costs, any proceedings to enforce judgement, negotiations about and/or a court assessment of costs of claim.

 

What IS NOT included is any counterclaim or any appeal the claimant makes against final judgement.

 

Now I'm no expert on no win no fee issues, but it strikes me that nothing is mentioned in relation to any potential costs liable on the claimant (my partner on behalf of daughter) if either the solicitor pulls out in relation to defence costs.

 

What happens if things proceed to court months down the road and the solicitor is unable to source a barrister also on a no win no fee basis leaving us to pay for as as of yet not mentioned after the event insurance policy that could cost us several hundreds to proceed or drop the case leaving the partner liable for all costs?.

 

Any advice as I've told my partner to not sign the CFA yet until I can get clarification on potential unstated costs that could be unavoidable months down the road.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every firm is different, but most get the ATE signed up early on. A few will get you to take it out before you issue Court proceedings.

 

Counsel is also usually signed up to a CFA before Court proceedings are issued.

 

If your solicitor issues Court proceedings then before trial tells you to discontinue, then your ATE will cover the Defendant's costs (providing you haven't been dishonest about any part of the claim)

 

There may also be a 25% deduction from your child's damages for their own legal fees and a couple of hundred quid for the ATE, if they win.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A couple of alternatives to a NWNF solicitor: If you have legal expenses cover with your household insurance, they may be willing to take the case on.

If you are a union member, many unions provide an accident claim service that extends to immediate family members.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Every firm is different, but most get the ATE signed up early on. A few will get you to take it out before you issue Court proceedings.

 

Counsel is also usually signed up to a CFA before Court proceedings are issued.

 

If your solicitor issues Court proceedings then before trial tells you to discontinue, then your ATE will cover the Defendant's costs (providing you haven't been dishonest about any part of the claim)

 

There may also be a 25% deduction from your child's damages for their own legal fees and a couple of hundred quid for the ATE, if they win.

 

Thanks for the replies, this is kind of how I understand things for the main. The part that concerns me is if my partner signs the CFA and after that point is told she also needs an AFE policy that would likely cost several hundreds and its rejected to the costs, is she then going to be liable for any or all accumulated solicitor costs to that point seeing as a CFA will have been signed (including what looks to be costly costs for medical record requests and medicals)?. As if she rejects the AFE (due to cost) and cant\wont go forwards without it, could she be classed as stopping the case and in breach of the CFA?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What ATE costs? ATE is needed to protect you against the other sides legal costs, but also against paying for your own disbursements like the medical report.

 

Most firms will require an ATE policy (if you don't already have some form of legal expense insurance) before they incur disbursements. Otherwise they often will require you to pay on account for the cost of medical reports etc.

 

The policy is almost always self insuring so if the claim loses or is discontinued on the advice of your solicitor there is nothing to pay.

 

If you don't win then there is no fee. The clue is in the name. :)

 

If you win then the cost of the ATE will usually be deducted from the settlement monies, along with 25% for your own legal fees.

 

Normally the only way you'd be liable to pay anything out of your own pocket is if you were dishonest about any part of the claim, rejected a settlement offer against the advice of your solicitor or tried to withdraw the claim for no good reason after costs and disbursements have been incurred.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, I can kind of understand that, but if my partner is hit with an ATE policy and cost that's unaffordable weeks\months down the road after signing the CFA and the solicitor says she cant\shouldnt proceed to court proceedings without it, does the CFA normally cover costs to that point if she pretty much says she can't afford to go to court?, or would she be in breach of the CFA for not agreeing to the solicitor recommendations to sign up for a ATE policy that will be unaffordable?.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would your partner be hit with an unaffordable ATE premium?

 

If the claim fails or is withdrawn on the advice of your solicitor then the premium is self insuring so there is nothing to pay (unless there is some dishonesty).

 

If the claim wins then the ATE premium is deducted from the settlement monies.

 

Either way, your partner doesn't pay for the ATE policy from her own pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would your partner be hit with an unaffordable ATE premium?

 

If the claim fails or is withdrawn on the advice of your solicitor then the premium is self insuring so there is nothing to pay (unless there is some dishonesty).

 

If the claim wins then the ATE premium is deducted from the settlement monies.

 

Either way, your partner doesn't pay for the ATE policy from her own pocket.

 

Ahh, I get you, the ATE isn't paid up front then?, If so that's helps a lot I guess, as paying for an ATE policy up front was a major concern. More so in that there is no mention of a ATE policy in the initial paperwork. Unless on first look the solicitor might see it as an open and shut case seeing as there is supposed to be video evidence of the incident from the company for which they was not forthcoming with, hence the solicitor visit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahh, I get you, the ATE isn't paid up front then?, If so that's helps a lot I guess, as paying for an ATE policy up front was a major concern. More so in that there is no mention of a ATE policy in the initial paperwork. Unless on first look the solicitor might see it as an open and shut case seeing as there is supposed to be video evidence of the incident from the company for which they was not forthcoming with, hence the solicitor visit.

 

Even an "open and shut" case can become convoluted if new facts materialise, so there is always some degree of "litigation risk", even with an "open and shut case".

So, that wouldn't be a reason for a solicitor to change their approach to funding as they'd never assume "100% win", even if they felt it was CLOSE to 100%, or likely to be as close to 100% as ever could be - they still wouldn't assume 100%!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...