Jump to content

Recommended Posts

kissthisguy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> 130K is a massive, massive bill. A painful episode

> all round. One wonders about the quality of their

> legal advice.



Probably not that massive if you have shedloads of dosh.


Anyway, they should have thought about that before they started all this. I agree re the possible quality of their legal advice, but perhaps they chose to go ahead regardless.

The defendents had offered settlement, which was rejected, I believe. The courts look kindly on reasonable settlements being offered and less kindly on their being rejected. The award made was far less than the settlement offered I believe. Courts do not look kindly on litigation they perceive as vexatious. There was an offence, but it was minor and could be said to partly benefit the claimant by offering weather proof protection to their property. We do not know what advice was given to the claimant by their legal team about accepting or rejecting the settlement offer.

"The court heard Mrs Ranford had sought to avoid the ?enormous costs? of a trial and offered her neighbours ?13,000 to settle the case earlier, but it had been refused."


Well, there you go. Sounds like an expensive lesson was learnt.


Having also been taken to court by a neighbour for completely spurious reasons, I can understand a little how Mrs Ranford feels. However, she still needs to pay 20% of her legal fees which could well end up being more than the amount she offered to settle. What a waste of time and money.

Why is this any of our business? I know of others in the area with issues over neighbour's extensions but feel no need to share here. After all the great things said about this forum this appears to be salacious nonsense. Sadly I was drawn in my the Daily Mail headline. Guilty as charged!


Ps probably used the wrong adjective but maybe not considering the headline!

It is a useful message of public interest as a stark reminder that getting lawyers involved in disputes is to be avoided wherever possible as this will never be the cheaper option and you will have no control over the outcome.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • Supermarkets have massive volume and tiny profit margins. If this were true Ocado would be dead by the end of the week, surely.
    • The step means Love Dulwich is not disabled friendly though they went to help someone on  crutches up the step last time we were there  much prefer it as a Turkish than café but maybe not for this group   The noise level might be an issue as it’s all hard surfaces though I don’t recall it being noisy. check out Olivelli the menu has a good range  though it’s not the best Italian you can get. There’s also a step up into Maria’s - much smaller but you need to negotiate the step and door at the same time. Olivelli has more room and if I remember right the toilets are on the ground floor. A consideration if steps are an issue The Lordship might be an option. Noise is not usually an issue. We’ve enjoyed various meals there. The ladies toilets are on the same floor as the tables (the gents may be upstairs). The staff are always friendly
    • It’s about chains, and the ethos of family run business versus unhealthy competition 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...