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

    • Apparently a tourist tax was Raynor's idea, but Reeves has put the kibosh on it because of the push-back she'll get from businesses
    • But a larger number, in a more hotly contested election, didn't. It is an anomaly that Starmer won a landslide in seats with a turnout for Labour which would have shamed Labour leaders in all the 21st and much of the post war 20th century.
    • I was not suggesting anything else!   I'm not sure how you interpret what I said  as "irrelevant"? I was responding to a post saying that Corbyn was "unelectable". My point was that a  large number  of the electorate  voted for him!
    • that's exactly what happened - Brickhouse were forced to close due to rent hike and then Gail's didn't move in until covid restrictions lifted and normality resumed. Gail's would have opened much sooner as they were lined up and able to offer the landlord much higher rents. Brickhouse was a local favourite
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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