'You bend it, you mend it' - Piper sues Hales

[skeggysteve]

YouTube video of the 917 at Cadwell - the uploader has a few more as well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atN-FeE15hs&lis...

[nick0137]

Hmmm. A lot of points here.
(1) Without a written judgment to read, this is all speculation. Basing views on the reportage of the losing party (who intimates that the judge didn't believe the right witnesses) is very dangerous.
(2) The judge was a mere circuit judge? True, but he was sitting as a section 9 High Court judge, so a High Court judge like any other. They can all make mistakes though.
(3)Hales legal team did a bad job or were outgunned? How anyone can reasonably think that when we don't even know what the issues were Or who the team was) is a bit baffling. They might have done a great job with a crap case (or vice versa).
(4) The richest man always wins in court? Just not true.
(5) Piper should have just borne the loss and damage himself, no matter where the fault lay? Why? Because he has more money than Hales? What a socialist view of liability. Because Hales is a good driver and a nice man and can't possibly have done anything wrong? Not sure how you can tell that.
(6) Journalists will now not drive cars because of the financial risk? Surely that's what insurance is for? I take on potential personal liabilities for maybe GBP 100 million or more when I advise and i don't get paid anything more than thousands. But I get insurance and pay for it out of the fee.

[Blackpuddin]

nick0137 said:

Hmmm. A lot of points here.
(6) Journalists will now not drive cars because of the financial risk? Surely that's what insurance is for? I take on potential personal liabilities for maybe GBP 100 million or more when I advise and i don't get paid anything more than thousands. But I get insurance and pay for it out of the fee.

Don't know what risk levels you're operating at, so I apologise if they're the same as driving a fragile old multi-million pound racing car on a track as near to the limit as you can in order to produce the best possible story for your employers (or, perhaps more accurately, for your readers). Suffice to say that journalists' fees fall laughably short of the thousands they would require to take out insurance against such a liability.

[groomi]

nick0137 said:

(6) Journalists will now not drive cars because of the financial risk? Surely that's what insurance is for? I take on potential personal liabilities for maybe GBP 100 million or more when I advise and i don't get paid anything more than thousands. But I get insurance and pay for it out of the fee.

And it would appear that he was insured via his own company. The issue is how and why a personal case was able to be brought. This question potentially goes far beyond expensive cars and journos, and could affect all kinds of micro companies...

[DonkeyApple]

groomi said:

And it would appear that he was insured via his own company. The issue is how and why a personal case was able to be brought. This question potentially goes far beyond expensive cars and journos, and could affect all kinds of micro companies...

You wouldn't sue a Ltd when you can go for the individual. This bit is logical, if harsh. A company can be folded. A company's assets can be moved. Liability is limited. And if their is 'cover' then you have to fight that company which will look to hold you until your money runs out.

Sadly it is logical to peruse the individual in the case of a small Ltd.

[coppice]

nick0137 said:

Hmmm. A lot of points here.
(1) Without a written judgment to read, this is all speculation. Basing views on the reportage of the losing party (who intimates that the judge didn't believe the right witnesses) is very dangerous.
(2) The judge was a mere circuit judge? True, but he was sitting as a section 9 High Court judge, so a High Court judge like any other. They can all make mistakes though.
(3)Hales legal team did a bad job or were outgunned? How anyone can reasonably think that when we don't even know what the issues were Or who the team was) is a bit baffling. They might have done a great job with a crap case (or vice versa).
(4) The richest man always wins in court? Just not true.
(5) Piper should have just borne the loss and damage himself, no matter where the fault lay? Why? Because he has more money than Hales? What a socialist view of liability. Because Hales is a good driver and a nice man and can't possibly have done anything wrong? Not sure how you can tell that.
(6) Journalists will now not drive cars because of the financial risk? Surely that's what insurance is for? I take on potential personal liabilities for maybe GBP 100 million or more when I advise and i don't get paid anything more than thousands. But I get insurance and pay for it out of the fee.

A voice of reason - congratulations. I really do not get the 'How can judges possibly know anything about 917s' arguments although the response might be 'rather more than a couple of racing drivers know about risk allocation'...Similarly the arguments that Hales is an innocent victim so the judge was wrong are just fatuous . I find it astonishing that anybody would get into a near priceless racing car - or allow somebody else to get into one's own - without having a clear understanding of who was responsible for damage if things went wrong for any reason. And here we had a 40 year old car notorious for its recalcitrant behaviour !If it was two mates mucking around..well maybe...but this was a commercial deal.Ironically though , the price for such an article falls a bloody long way short of the value of the subject . I feel hugely sorry for Mark Hales but quite why David Piper should blithely say ' these things happen, I'll pay for the damge you caused' is beyond me. However- if the thing simply broke because it happened to expire in Mark Hales hands he cannot be in breach of any duty of care.

[Steve H]

DonkeyApple said:

groomi said:

And it would appear that he was insured via his own company. The issue is how and why a personal case was able to be brought. This question potentially goes far beyond expensive cars and journos, and could affect all kinds of micro companies...

You wouldn't sue a Ltd when you can go for the individual. This bit is logical, if harsh. A company can be folded. A company's assets can be moved. Liability is limited. And if their is 'cover' then you have to fight that company which will look to hold you until your money runs out.

Sadly it is logical to peruse the individual in the case of a small Ltd.

It's been suggested that the company had liability insurance.

[DonkeyApple]

Steve H said:

DonkeyApple said:

groomi said:

And it would appear that he was insured via his own company. The issue is how and why a personal case was able to be brought. This question potentially goes far beyond expensive cars and journos, and could affect all kinds of micro companies...

You wouldn't sue a Ltd when you can go for the individual. This bit is logical, if harsh. A company can be folded. A company's assets can be moved. Liability is limited. And if their is 'cover' then you have to fight that company which will look to hold you until your money runs out.

Sadly it is logical to peruse the individual in the case of a small Ltd.

It's been suggested that the company had liability insurance.

Another reason to avoid it. They would look to hold the complainant until the cows came home. If you know the man has the assets to cover your claim and costs you would persue the individual. Definitely not risk getting tied with an insurance firm looking to swerve.

[Shaw Tarse]

It'll be interesting to read the thoughts of a Mr Harris tomorrow.

[rubystone]

Shaw Tarse said:

It'll be interesting to read the thoughts of a Mr Harris tomorrow.

Why would he comment? I rarely if ever see him comment on anything remotely contentious..and wouldn't blame him for avoiding the issue.

[_Batty_]

rubystone said:

Why would he comment? I rarely if ever see him comment on anything remotely contentious..and wouldn't blame him for avoiding the issue.

He's added his support to Hales on twitter FYI.
As do I. £50k engine rebuild on a car already sold, and mud on everyone's face, seems a rather cr@p result.

[_Batty_]

rubystone said:

Why would he comment? I rarely if ever see him comment on anything remotely contentious..and wouldn't blame him for avoiding the issue.

Double post.

[groomi]

DonkeyApple said:

Steve H said:

DonkeyApple said:

groomi said:

And it would appear that he was insured via his own company. The issue is how and why a personal case was able to be brought. This question potentially goes far beyond expensive cars and journos, and could affect all kinds of micro companies...

You wouldn't sue a Ltd when you can go for the individual. This bit is logical, if harsh. A company can be folded. A company's assets can be moved. Liability is limited. And if their is 'cover' then you have to fight that company which will look to hold you until your money runs out.

Sadly it is logical to peruse the individual in the case of a small Ltd.

It's been suggested that the company had liability insurance.

Another reason to avoid it. They would look to hold the complainant until the cows came home. If you know the man has the assets to cover your claim and costs you would persue the individual. Definitely not risk getting tied with an insurance firm looking to swerve.

My point is, how did Piper manage to go for the individual when the whole point of having a limited co with relevant liabilities insurance is for this very reason? It has been suggested that this was enabled by Hales using a private email address, not his company one. If that is true and the only reason he was able to be pursued personally, then it will have serious ramifications for many such companies in all industries.

Personally, I can't believe the use of an email address is enough for such a fundamental breach of the purpose of a ltd company. There must surely be more to the story here?

[freedman]

coppice said:

nick0137 said:

Hmmm. A lot of points here.
(1) Without a written judgment to read, this is all speculation. Basing views on the reportage of the losing party (who intimates that the judge didn't believe the right witnesses) is very dangerous.
(2) The judge was a mere circuit judge? True, but he was sitting as a section 9 High Court judge, so a High Court judge like any other. They can all make mistakes though.
(3)Hales legal team did a bad job or were outgunned? How anyone can reasonably think that when we don't even know what the issues were Or who the team was) is a bit baffling. They might have done a great job with a crap case (or vice versa).
(4) The richest man always wins in court? Just not true.
(5) Piper should have just borne the loss and damage himself, no matter where the fault lay? Why? Because he has more money than Hales? What a socialist view of liability. Because Hales is a good driver and a nice man and can't possibly have done anything wrong? Not sure how you can tell that.
(6) Journalists will now not drive cars because of the financial risk? Surely that's what insurance is for? I take on potential personal liabilities for maybe GBP 100 million or more when I advise and i don't get paid anything more than thousands. But I get insurance and pay for it out of the fee.

A voice of reason - congratulations. I really do not get the 'How can judges possibly know anything about 917s' arguments although the response might be 'rather more than a couple of racing drivers know about risk allocation'...Similarly the arguments that Hales is an innocent victim so the judge was wrong are just fatuous . I find it astonishing that anybody would get into a near priceless racing car - or allow somebody else to get into one's own - without having a clear understanding of who was responsible for damage if things went wrong for any reason. And here we had a 40 year old car notorious for its recalcitrant behaviour !If it was two mates mucking around..well maybe...but this was a commercial deal.Ironically though , the price for such an article falls a bloody long way short of the value of the subject . I feel hugely sorry for Mark Hales but quite why David Piper should blithely say ' these things happen, I'll pay for the damge you caused' is beyond me. However- if the thing simply broke because it happened to expire in Mark Hales hands he cannot be in breach of any duty of care.

Two good posts here IMO

The judgement should enlighten us a little I imagine

[Shaw Tarse]

_Batty_ said:

rubystone said:

Why would he comment? I rarely if ever see him comment on anything remotely contentious..and wouldn't blame him for avoiding the issue.

He's added his support to Hales on twitter FYI.
As do I. £50k engine rebuild on a car already sold, and mud on everyone's face, seems a rather cr@p result.

I'd read that, he's also mentioned he may blog his thoughts on PH. (it's seems he's not the only one on the PH team to be disappointed by the decision)

[96eight]

If it is true that Mark is going to lose his house, I for one would happily make a financial contribution to this.

If we value people driving cars we can only dream of and writing about them on our behalf then Mark must not be allowed to take that penalty on his own.

[DonkeyApple]

groomi said:

DonkeyApple said:

Steve H said:

DonkeyApple said:

groomi said:

And it would appear that he was insured via his own company. The issue is how and why a personal case was able to be brought. This question potentially goes far beyond expensive cars and journos, and could affect all kinds of micro companies...

You wouldn't sue a Ltd when you can go for the individual. This bit is logical, if harsh. A company can be folded. A company's assets can be moved. Liability is limited. And if their is 'cover' then you have to fight that company which will look to hold you until your money runs out.

Sadly it is logical to peruse the individual in the case of a small Ltd.

It's been suggested that the company had liability insurance.

Another reason to avoid it. They would look to hold the complainant until the cows came home. If you know the man has the assets to cover your claim and costs you would persue the individual. Definitely not risk getting tied with an insurance firm looking to swerve.

My point is, how did Piper manage to go for the individual when the whole point of having a limited co with relevant liabilities insurance is for this very reason? It has been suggested that this was enabled by Hales using a private email address, not his company one. If that is true and the only reason he was able to be pursued personally, then it will have serious ramifications for many such companies in all industries.

Personally, I can't believe the use of an email address is enough for such a fundamental breach of the purpose of a ltd company. There must surely be more to the story here?

Ah, see what you mean. Sorry.

There must have been correspondence in a personal capacity or similar.

[rubystone]

96eight said:

If it is true that Mark is going to lose his house, I for one would happily make a financial contribution to this.

If we value people driving cars we can only dream of and writing about them on our behalf then Mark must not be allowed to take that penalty on his own.

Let's hope his journo mates and the publishers of the magazines who have not even tweeted nor commented also contribute then. The magazines are conspicuous by their absence here after all....

[fcat]

groomi said:

My point is, how did Piper manage to go for the individual when the whole point of having a limited co with relevant liabilities insurance is for this very reason?

From memory when I was involved in drawing up contracts which included insurance, if MH was grossly negligent (not saying he was, mind you) then it is likely that his company's insurance would not cover that situation anyway. I also suspect there are circumstances involving gross negligence where an individual may not be able to hide behind a company, any more than they could for criminal activity. No doubt a proper legal bod can comment further on this. Certainly people set up Limited Liability companies to gain some personal protection against unforeseen business problems but its not 100% protection.

[nick0137]

(1) If the journalist's fee isn't enough to cover insurance then the job isn't viable. But actually if, as does seem often to be the case, this type of article is part of a marketing process for a valuable car, then why not charge a bigger fee that is sufficient to cover insurance. The car owner will, if this sort of marketing is needed, just chalk the bigger fee up to the car's marketing budget.
(2) If you are a respected and responsible professional, as Hales seems to be, then such insurance ought not to be prohibitively expensive. I take GBP 50 million of insurance a year for not much more than my total car insurance. The professional services insurance market is not car insurance.
(3) As to Hales being personally liable, it sounds like he maybe didn't have his non-contractual paperwork in order ie letters on company notepaper, emails from company address. Moreover, if you go to the trouble of setting up a company to trade through (and get it insured) then having a short form agreement (if only in an email) that it is the company contracting and not you personally ought to follow.
(4) As to Piper's motives and morals, we must wait and see. Maybe he was pissed off because Hales washed his hands of it and wanted to make the point that he couldn't. Many a judgment never gets enforced in full or at all....