Japanese knotweed - lawyer win
Discussion
Afternoon all
Reading this article, I see a pair of solicitors have managed to make £195k out of a £32k dispute.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11674447/...
The seller said "no" on the ta6 form to declare knotweed wasn't present. It was. The buyer sued the seller for £32k for misrepresenting the sale.
Ultimately, the seller told the judge he didn't know what was behind the shed (where it was located) and an expert said it was likely 2m high and had been treated before.
Had he said "don't know" he would have gotten away with it, but the judge found he had no basis on which to positively say "no" and awarded damages £32k and buyers costs £100k (he pays his own £95k costs)
Now, the point of this rambling: between the seller and their solicitor, there must have at some point been a conversation about the likelihood of winning,
Surely the defending solicitor would have known this was a serious flaw in his case, and pushing on with the case was risking these huge costs?
Finally, I am getting some legal advice on a particular issue, and am paying £500+ vat for an hour of a solicitor, including the trainee, a review by the lead solicitor and their insurance/overheads.
How did this case rack up £195k I wonder? It doesn't give me a lot of faith that ordinary people can access the justice system if they need to, and seems entirely disproportionate.
Reading this article, I see a pair of solicitors have managed to make £195k out of a £32k dispute.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11674447/...
The seller said "no" on the ta6 form to declare knotweed wasn't present. It was. The buyer sued the seller for £32k for misrepresenting the sale.
Ultimately, the seller told the judge he didn't know what was behind the shed (where it was located) and an expert said it was likely 2m high and had been treated before.
Had he said "don't know" he would have gotten away with it, but the judge found he had no basis on which to positively say "no" and awarded damages £32k and buyers costs £100k (he pays his own £95k costs)
Now, the point of this rambling: between the seller and their solicitor, there must have at some point been a conversation about the likelihood of winning,
Surely the defending solicitor would have known this was a serious flaw in his case, and pushing on with the case was risking these huge costs?
Finally, I am getting some legal advice on a particular issue, and am paying £500+ vat for an hour of a solicitor, including the trainee, a review by the lead solicitor and their insurance/overheads.
How did this case rack up £195k I wonder? It doesn't give me a lot of faith that ordinary people can access the justice system if they need to, and seems entirely disproportionate.
I have been involved in a few legal actions at work including one where our estimated costs were (1) £100k for part 1 which would determine if it was English or Scottish law/courts and (2) £500k for the action itself. You have to be very aware that even if you win you only get a percentage of your costs (40-50%?) our lawyers (big international firm) spelt this out to us and it was always in my mind when considering settlement options. In other words I am better settling with a £100k payment to the other party rather than going to court and winning, in winning I avoid paying the other party but pick up a legal bill of £200-300k).
I never had one go to court but came very close.
Some principals won't listen to advice and won't be pragmatic - they want to rub the other parties nose in the proverbial.
I never had one go to court but came very close.
Some principals won't listen to advice and won't be pragmatic - they want to rub the other parties nose in the proverbial.
Lawyers gotta bill.
I've had a few engagements with solicitors and found that after a couple of trips round the mulberry bush, you realise that their primary motivation is to present you with reasons why you continue to need their expert and very expensive assistance. It's then a lot easier to judge when you absolutely need them and when you can totally do without.
I sometimes wonder with this sort of story - just what advice has the solicitor given to the client? You really would expect that an experienced trained professional would be able to spot which way the wind was blowing much earlier and advise their client they aren't going to win (and it'll cost them a fortune).
I've had a few engagements with solicitors and found that after a couple of trips round the mulberry bush, you realise that their primary motivation is to present you with reasons why you continue to need their expert and very expensive assistance. It's then a lot easier to judge when you absolutely need them and when you can totally do without.
I sometimes wonder with this sort of story - just what advice has the solicitor given to the client? You really would expect that an experienced trained professional would be able to spot which way the wind was blowing much earlier and advise their client they aren't going to win (and it'll cost them a fortune).
Genuinely curious as to how you rack up £100k in your own legal costs defending being sued for £32k
At what point does your own solicitor not tell you the bleeding obvious?
Still, this is a Daily Mail article involving house prices which they normally make up on a whim to try to determine someone's place in the social pecking order, so it's all probably b
ks.
At what point does your own solicitor not tell you the bleeding obvious?
Still, this is a Daily Mail article involving house prices which they normally make up on a whim to try to determine someone's place in the social pecking order, so it's all probably b
ks. 
There was a local case a few years back. Homeowner was sued by another over claims of wrongdoing. They were false claims. The one making these claims had a beef about the accused and it went to the High Court. He lost and ended up losing his house to cover costs and damages.
I couldn’t work out why they continued and not back down. Surely their legal team would advise on the strength of their case? If seems they were “doing it on principle” and ignored any advice ( if actually given).
So did the legal team advise stopping?
Did the losing homeowner listen or ignore?
If the former then would there be a case for suing the legal team?
In another local case a business owner sued a solicitor and won substantial damages for malpractice of some kind. The solicitor “ retired” from the firm, taking the hit to deflect from the firm.
I couldn’t work out why they continued and not back down. Surely their legal team would advise on the strength of their case? If seems they were “doing it on principle” and ignored any advice ( if actually given).
So did the legal team advise stopping?
Did the losing homeowner listen or ignore?
If the former then would there be a case for suing the legal team?
In another local case a business owner sued a solicitor and won substantial damages for malpractice of some kind. The solicitor “ retired” from the firm, taking the hit to deflect from the firm.
PurpleTurtle said:
Genuinely curious as to how you rack up £100k in your own legal costs defending being sued for £32k
At what point does your own solicitor not tell you the bleeding obvious?
Still, this is a Daily Mail article involving house prices which they normally make up on a whim to try to determine someone's place in the social pecking order, so it's all probably bks.
The implication is that the seller was dishonest, that he knew there had been knotweed there previously.At what point does your own solicitor not tell you the bleeding obvious?
Still, this is a Daily Mail article involving house prices which they normally make up on a whim to try to determine someone's place in the social pecking order, so it's all probably b
ks. If a solicitor's client isn't being completely honest, how is the solicitor supposed to give the client correct advice?
People can be like that - have to win at all costs.
I have worked for people like that, and it's painful.
I am even guilty of winding one MD up, just for fun.
He had successfully chased a customer for a £30,000 debt, but when the customer paid, all bar the last £30, I told him we had been short paid.....
........and watched and listened while he spent the entire morning on the phone chasing his £30.
He never understood why nobody liked him.
I have worked for people like that, and it's painful.
I am even guilty of winding one MD up, just for fun.
He had successfully chased a customer for a £30,000 debt, but when the customer paid, all bar the last £30, I told him we had been short paid.....
........and watched and listened while he spent the entire morning on the phone chasing his £30.
He never understood why nobody liked him.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff