How many court proceedings are "obvious" going in to them?
Discussion
Question for the "pros": How many court proceedings is the result obvious (give or take a little) to the "pros" of both parties going into them?
My assumption is it's over 90% but under 99%. I don't have a particular reason to say that though other than intuition.
By "pro" I don't mean just legal teams, but e.g. consistent expert witnesses (where's that pitboots guy) and so on. But not the unrealistic nuisance lay clients or pro se ppl.
I'm sorry if this thread doesn't make that much sense. I've got hand foot and mouth disease, which I propose should be renamed to arse, hand, arse, foot, arse, mouth and arse disease and am self medicating. Don't let any stupid NHS site tell you this is milder in adults.
My assumption is it's over 90% but under 99%. I don't have a particular reason to say that though other than intuition.
By "pro" I don't mean just legal teams, but e.g. consistent expert witnesses (where's that pitboots guy) and so on. But not the unrealistic nuisance lay clients or pro se ppl.
I'm sorry if this thread doesn't make that much sense. I've got hand foot and mouth disease, which I propose should be renamed to arse, hand, arse, foot, arse, mouth and arse disease and am self medicating. Don't let any stupid NHS site tell you this is milder in adults.
Edited by Somewhatfoolish on Sunday 3rd November 23:09
As long as we are talking about 'proper court' and not self-representing small claims I think the % of dead certs is far lower than you estimate.
It is properly expensive to go to court. Lawyers will tell you when your case is s
t. Judges will let you know when your case is st.
To get to a hearing when your case is st, you're in the hole for your serious costs, you've been told that your case is weak and you're probably in the hole for the other side's costs. You have to be incredibly thick-skinned.
It is properly expensive to go to court. Lawyers will tell you when your case is s
t. Judges will let you know when your case is st. To get to a hearing when your case is s
t, you're in the hole for your serious costs, you've been told that your case is weak and you're probably in the hole for the other side's costs. You have to be incredibly thick-skinned.Not the case at all in construction NEC contracts. Usually one party is bang to rights for BOC but their lawyers always advise them to push it from cheap adjudication to court, then higher courts and appeals etc. Lawyers end up with a fat paycheck and the guy who didnt stand a chance from the off is bankrupt due to poor advice. Literally see this scenario at least once a fortnight.
Also government bodies that have commissioned a building like a school for example, they will repeatedly change the building they want while it's under construction and then when hit with the costs for all their changes have a fit, do adjudication then through the courts as they have left it entirely with a law firm to deal with, turning a justifiable £15k bump in costs into £35k.
It's such a disgusting waste of money on all sides and has ruined the construction industry.
Also government bodies that have commissioned a building like a school for example, they will repeatedly change the building they want while it's under construction and then when hit with the costs for all their changes have a fit, do adjudication then through the courts as they have left it entirely with a law firm to deal with, turning a justifiable £15k bump in costs into £35k.
It's such a disgusting waste of money on all sides and has ruined the construction industry.
The figures on construction disputes are available to review.
Over the last five years there have been between 1900 and 2200 adjudications per year - so around 2000. (Search for the kings college report by prof nazzini)
The specialist court for the construction industry also publishes figures. In the three 2020 to 2023 around 500 new claims were issued per year. (All from TCC annual report)
A small number of those are listed for trial and a smaller number actually contested with a hearing.
In 22-23, 71 cases were listed and 17 were contested at trial. The year before 134 were listed 34 actually went to trial.
So 80 ish percent of listed cases settle. Less than 5% of issued cases go to trial.
What does this tell us? I think that in the very small number that actually reach trial the parties are likely to be genuinely contesting the result. Some will be tactical still, but few want to run the huge expense of trial if you know you’re wrong.
Over the last five years there have been between 1900 and 2200 adjudications per year - so around 2000. (Search for the kings college report by prof nazzini)
The specialist court for the construction industry also publishes figures. In the three 2020 to 2023 around 500 new claims were issued per year. (All from TCC annual report)
A small number of those are listed for trial and a smaller number actually contested with a hearing.
In 22-23, 71 cases were listed and 17 were contested at trial. The year before 134 were listed 34 actually went to trial.
So 80 ish percent of listed cases settle. Less than 5% of issued cases go to trial.
What does this tell us? I think that in the very small number that actually reach trial the parties are likely to be genuinely contesting the result. Some will be tactical still, but few want to run the huge expense of trial if you know you’re wrong.
KungFuPanda said:
There are no dead certs when you go to Court. In the instance of lower value civil matters, there are normally heard by a District Judge in the County Court. You can get mental ones that can decide either way dependant on what they had for breakfast that day.
Completely thisCases I have been very confident of winning have lost and vice versa
Worse thing is a Judge going back and forward before giving a result
Answer is not that many.
Absent intransigent clients on an obvious loser or litigants in person obsessed, most cases litigated to trial have lawyers on both sides believing there's an arguable case. Doesn't mean they're all knife edge nor that the acting lawyers would bet their own houses on the outcome...
Absent intransigent clients on an obvious loser or litigants in person obsessed, most cases litigated to trial have lawyers on both sides believing there's an arguable case. Doesn't mean they're all knife edge nor that the acting lawyers would bet their own houses on the outcome...
Exciting is not the term I would use. Hard work and stressful is.
My bit of the property world is very litigious and the firm I work for responsible for a significant number of key decisions in our field. I have been a factual witness twice this year and am currently preparing for a third.
There is a significant amount of time spend writing witness statements, and supporting the team reviewing the other sides statements, before we get to court. Normal work does not stop around any of this.
Time in the Witness Box runs very slowly...
My bit of the property world is very litigious and the firm I work for responsible for a significant number of key decisions in our field. I have been a factual witness twice this year and am currently preparing for a third.
There is a significant amount of time spend writing witness statements, and supporting the team reviewing the other sides statements, before we get to court. Normal work does not stop around any of this.
Time in the Witness Box runs very slowly...
My experience comes from matters we’ve had go to litigation or close to litigation in professional services and hence civil matters. I was initially surprised that whatever the strength of the case on demonstrable technical factors the lawyers always seem to advise that the judge selected and the idiosyncrasies of that judge are a risk. They may, of course, be covering themselves but my experience is that there’s no such thing as a sure thing in this type of litigation.
I’ve heard Barristers say they are trained to go into a court case with an open mind. They’re not allowed to have a pre-conceived opinion on what happened until the Court has reviewed all the evidence. Remember that a Defendant is innocent by default until proven guilty.
A Barrister said that when you hear an allegation, it’s easy to jump to conclusions, until you see all the evidence and then realise it’s not what you originally assumed.
There’s also the fact that a Barrister isn’t there to get you off the hook, but to ensure the Defendant gets a fair trial and there’s no corruption or miscarriage of justice. To test the evidence.
On a side note, a colleague of mine recently did Jury duty. He is the most immature and narrow minded person I know. I wouldn’t trust him to make the right decision.
A Barrister said that when you hear an allegation, it’s easy to jump to conclusions, until you see all the evidence and then realise it’s not what you originally assumed.
There’s also the fact that a Barrister isn’t there to get you off the hook, but to ensure the Defendant gets a fair trial and there’s no corruption or miscarriage of justice. To test the evidence.
On a side note, a colleague of mine recently did Jury duty. He is the most immature and narrow minded person I know. I wouldn’t trust him to make the right decision.
Edited by Mr Miata on Friday 8th November 11:14
Experienced legal professionals can generally predict outcomes with fairly high accuracy, though perhaps not as high as 90-99%.
Here is why:
. Most cases follow established precedent and fact patterns that experienced attorneys have seen many times before
. Discovery and pre-trial procedures usually make the strength of evidence clear to both sides
. This predictability is precisely why most cases (>95% in many jurisdictions) settle before trial
However, several factors can make outcomes less certain:
. Novel legal questions without clear precedent
. Cases that hinge heavily on credibility determinations
. Jury trials (which are notably less predictable than bench trials)
. Complex technical or scientific evidence where experts genuinely disagree
I would estimate that 75-85% of cases have fairly predictable outcomes for experienced practitioners, with the remainder having genuine uncertainty.
Here is why:
. Most cases follow established precedent and fact patterns that experienced attorneys have seen many times before
. Discovery and pre-trial procedures usually make the strength of evidence clear to both sides
. This predictability is precisely why most cases (>95% in many jurisdictions) settle before trial
However, several factors can make outcomes less certain:
. Novel legal questions without clear precedent
. Cases that hinge heavily on credibility determinations
. Jury trials (which are notably less predictable than bench trials)
. Complex technical or scientific evidence where experts genuinely disagree
I would estimate that 75-85% of cases have fairly predictable outcomes for experienced practitioners, with the remainder having genuine uncertainty.
In the criminal world - and probably analogous in other civil courts - if something was an absolute dead cert it would most likely have been settled out of court (either a guilty plea or a discontinuance). CPS will get counsel's advice and if counsel thinks the job is hopeless they will probably push to drop it.
Nothing is certain at court because you're trying to predict how people's evidence will go. Some witnesses will turn out to be brilliant and others will turn out to be atrocious.
Once all the evidence has been heard then it's sometimes reasonably predictable how a jury will go (though by no means certain and plenty of cases are a toss up)
Nothing is certain at court because you're trying to predict how people's evidence will go. Some witnesses will turn out to be brilliant and others will turn out to be atrocious.
Once all the evidence has been heard then it's sometimes reasonably predictable how a jury will go (though by no means certain and plenty of cases are a toss up)
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff