Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:20 am

When I know that what we have is not sufficient, My way of working with it is to proceed very cautiously, and, if possible, to gather more information.

One thing we do know is that ding's bloke has been unsuccessful on a number of occasions. That tells me that a lot more investigation is required before a case can be mounted that those earlier decisions were wrong.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18639
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby Denning » Mon Mar 16, 2015 8:40 am

atticus wrote:I may sound like a broken record, but one thing is missing from this discussion: the terms of the retainer*.

In all cases - ALL CASES - start by understanding the parties' obligations to each other. Rights and entitlements can then be measured against those obligations.


* I know that ding has said what he conceives those terms to be.

Could you point me to suggestive areas to check in the documentations?
Slartibartfast wrote:I am of course expressing my view on the sole basis of the information provided by Den. He may be mistaken in his understanding. But that is the situation with every new topic - we can only work with what we have.

I agree that the crux is to understand the parties' obligations to each other, what exactly was agreed between them. There is clearly a perception gap here. Den describes a situation which could not be considered right, but a costs judge reached a different view.

There were no client care letter. The belated client care letter the solicitor sent after the event did not make any reference to the case. :lol:
It is not disputed between the parties that it was a total costs fixed fee agreement. The Ombudsman's decision was that the service provided by the Solicitor was reasonable because he spent several hours in meeting with the LiP.

My reading and re-reading of the case makes me to feel that both the Legal Ombudsman and the Courts possibly have treated the case as non contentions matter where fair and reasonable subjective judgment is permissible. The case in my opinion is a contentions matter as it was a case before the ECHR.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby atticus » Mon Mar 16, 2015 9:26 am

I suggest that you keep looking and asking until satisfied you have seen everything that is relevant.

If you can show the Costs Judge got it wrong, appeal. Seek permission from the appellate court.

If you cannot show that, either you haven't got everything or the Costs Judge got it right.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 18639
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby Denning » Thu Mar 19, 2015 2:58 am

atticus wrote:I suggest that you keep looking and asking until satisfied you have seen everything that is relevant.

I found out that the LiP actually provided evidence of fraud against the Solicitor but he did not use the exact word "fraud" rather he used the word "dishonesty". I also found out that the LiP provided in his statement that the Solicitor's bill was invalid and not a statute bill in accordance with law.

I have not read opinions here as to what are considered special circumstances under s70(3) of the Solicitor Acts 1974. In my opinion I would think any case of fraud or demonstrable dishonesty as used by the LiP should be sufficient enough to be considered a special circumstance.
atticus wrote:If you can show the Costs Judge got it wrong, appeal. Seek permission from the appellate court.

I suggested to him already that on the balance of probability justice is not the rule but the exception where LiP is concerned. So to that extent this litigant may have an extremely high hurdle to get permission to appeal since very few judges would devote reasonable time to read LiPs applications. If his application is not read how would he be able to show that the Costs Judge got it wrong?
atticus wrote:If you cannot show that, either you haven't got everything or the Costs Judge got it right.

I think the first step for LiP to show that the Costs Judge got it wrong is for his application to be read. This is why I believe that on the balance of probability the permission to appeal process, as it is being practice in England and Wales jurisdiction, is a crude form of jungle justice and judicial jingoism.

I think the begging question is how can a judicial office holder be made accountable to demonstrate independence, impartiality, undisputed integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence in each of his or her decision made?
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby dls » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:44 am

Sorry denning, but you present a complete mix up.

You say the contract terms are agreed and the client care letter has been sent - though late. That implies therefore that the two are in the same terms. If so you have exactly what Atti says you need first to look at.

You should really ask yourself whether in fact your 'assistance' to your friend is in fact helping him. Your heart may be in the right place, but your head appears not to be.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11787
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby Slartibartfast » Thu Mar 19, 2015 6:51 am

Denning wrote:the LiP provided in his statement that the Solicitor's bill was invalid and not a statute bill in accordance with law.

Sorry, don't understand this at all. What law prescribes how a tradesman will invoice for his services? Does my garage have to provide the bill in some defined way for it to be valid? Would be helpful to have a link to the relevant Acts.

Denning wrote:I think the begging question is how can a judicial office holder be made accountable to demonstrate independence, impartiality, undisputed integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence in each of his or her decision made?

This is where you lose me. You've looked at some of the papers and your sympathy is with the client, so you jump to unwarranted hyperbole about the judge's competence and integrity. It is FAR more likely that you haven't been given the full story, or that you haven't understood it.
"Judicial tergiversation is not to be encouraged"
User avatar
Slartibartfast
 
Posts: 3745
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 5:06 pm

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby dls » Thu Mar 19, 2015 9:09 am

The form of a solicitors bill is prescribed in several different ways according to the nature of the matter. A failure to comply with them does not make a bill invalid but it does leave certain limitations in place until cured.

Advice on a matter which does not get as far as proceedings being issued may be subject to the rules for non-contentious business.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11787
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby Denning » Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:18 pm

dls wrote:Sorry denning, but you present a complete mix up.

You say the contract terms are agreed and the client care letter has been sent - though late. That implies therefore that the two are in the same terms. If so you have exactly what Atti says you need first to look at.

You should really ask yourself whether in fact your 'assistance' to your friend is in fact helping him. Your heart may be in the right place, but your head appears not to be.

Denning wrote:There were no client care letter. The belated client care letter the solicitor sent after the event did not make any reference to the case. :lol:

That was what I wrote. After the event was to mean after the solicitor had been told by the LiP to return the money and also after the expiration of the ECHR deadline had long past. The Client Care Letter that was sent which I have read contained nothing whatsoever about the ECHR matter. Also did not contain complaint procedure to the Legal Ombudsman.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Re: Telephone Hearing Injustice - Senior Courts Costs Office

Postby Denning » Thu Mar 19, 2015 12:35 pm

Slartibartfast wrote:
Denning wrote:the LiP provided in his statement that the Solicitor's bill was invalid and not a statute bill in accordance with law.

Sorry, don't understand this at all. What law prescribes how a tradesman will invoice for his services? Does my garage have to provide the bill in some defined way for it to be valid? Would be helpful to have a link to the relevant Acts.

Denning wrote:I think the begging question is how can a judicial office holder be made accountable to demonstrate independence, impartiality, undisputed integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence in each of his or her decision made?

This is where you lose me. You've looked at some of the papers and your sympathy is with the client, so you jump to unwarranted hyperbole about the judge's competence and integrity. It is FAR more likely that you haven't been given the full story, or that you haven't understood it.

S69(2) of the Solicitors Act 1974 provided how a bill should be. The bill has no narrative as well.

The LiP Claim was not struck out as requested by the Solicitor on grounds that it was more than one year S70(4) of the Solicitors Act 1974 but dismissed according the LiP on the Costs Judge wide discretion. Solicitor did not object for the Claim to be assessed if within 12 months and the LiP told me there was no oral application made by the solicitor to object it. Despite the solicitor's applications against the LiP were both refused the Costs Judge awarded the expenses incurred by the Solicitor's in making his applications and the response of the LiP to that counter claim that were refused.
Denning
 
Posts: 553
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:41 am

Previous

Return to Costs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron