Compo culture

Status
Not open for further replies.
Purple said:
In the case above they still had the legal costs for their side.
Click to expand...

We don't know how much they cost, but in terms of sending a message that dubious claims will be challenged with a reasonable probability that such claims before a judge could be thrown out, it was probably a cost worth bearing.
With a combination of this and new legislation to prosecute perjury we could, be seeing the end of the compo culture, or at least reductions in lawsuits.
 
WolfeTone said:
We don't know how much they cost, but in terms of sending a message that dubious claims will be challenged with a reasonable probability that such claims before a judge could be thrown out, it was probably a cost worth bearing.
With a combination of this and new legislation to prosecute perjury we could, be seeing the end of the compo culture, or at least reductions in lawsuits.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter how much they cost. They still cost the insurance company thousands to defend it and it time consuming. It takes up a judges time. It's take up court services time. It takes up company staff time. It causes stress to company staff and management. And that's just to get to the stage of a judge throwing it out. Cases like this should never come before a court where a judge rules as emphatically as that saying it is simply not defamation to ask someone to pay for a meal. So what solicitor brought that case? Was his decision to bring the peer reviewed? How did he charge the client? Was it no win, no pay which is simply a business model of launching huge amount of lawsuits knowing that one or two will stick. There is more to the culture than a judge throwing out the case. The real problem is what happens before it gets to court in the legal and medical professions. The awards given for successful cases is just one part of it.
 
WolfeTone said:
It does matter, very much so.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't. If the insurance company has to pay 50 euro or 50 thousand euro to defend a nuisance lawsuit is not the issue. They still have to defend absolute nonsense cases that members of the legal profession are taking on out of pure greed. Or stupidity. What trained solicitor thinks asking someone to pay for their meal is defamation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top