ED in Daily Mail: millionare hipster gender-neutral organic battle

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.

Not sure you can doubt their legal advice. They won their case after all.

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.

Yes she was very unlucky moving in next door to such people.

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's not

But people are people and curious about others which is why tabloid papers still exist.

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.

.