termonlady
Member
I have been involved in a recent Small Claims Court claim which was approximately £1,500.
One party was insured whereas the other party was not insured.
The insurance company paid for the insured party to be represented by a large firm of major city centre solicitors AND for a barrister to appear on the day of the court hearing.
The case took 17 months from the inception of the claim to the date of the trial. During this time the legal costs of the solicitors' practice alone would have been substantially in excess of £1,500. Furthermore, the costs for a barrister to travel and appear in court for one day would be exponentially more than £1,500.
The other party to the dispute was not legally represented. This decision would appear to have been entirely logical and sensible, based on the fact that the origins for the creation of the Small Claims Court were that non-lawyers could bring legal actions for minor sums of money. Indeed it was and remains ridiculous to conceive that that any sensible person would contemplate the expense of paying a team of lawyers more in fees than the sum of money in dispute.
Later, during the late 1990's, widespread concerns surrounding the escalating costs and delays in the civil justice system were the very reasons why the Woolf Reforms were implemented to reduce excessive costs and delays.
However, the aims and objectives that allegedly underpin the existence of the Small Claims Court and the implementation of the Woolf Reforms appear to have tjhwarted during the preparation and trial of the case to which I make reference.
In this case, the barrister could utilise his/her specialised knowledge of the the rules of court procedure and evidence to the detriment of the party who was not legally represented and thus had no knowledge of the niceties of evidential protocol. Furthermore, the legal jargon and the honed skills of examination and cross-examination in relation to the area of civil law (e.g. law of contract) in question militated against and thus disadvantaged the non-lawyer who was a party to the dispute.
So, fellow horse owners - why are the costs of our equine insurance policies increasing so much over the past few years?
Maybe these questions might be relevant:
Q1) Who pays the solicitors PLUS allows them to also instruct barristers in a minor equine claim when a party is covered by insurance?
A: the insurance company
Q2) Who pays the insurance companies premiums?
A: horse owners
Q3) What is happening to horse owners' insurance premiums?
A: they have heavily and steadily increased over recent years.
Q4) So, whose premiums fund solicitors practices and barristers fees of, for instance, more than £1,500 EACH for say a total claim of £1,500?
A: HORSE OWNERS
Q5) Is this liasion between the insurance and legal sectors FAIR or JUST from the perspective of horse owners who are being forced to pay heavily increased premiums to fund the legal profession which simultaneously forces the costs of insurance premiums beyond the reach on many horse owners?
A: Fellow horse owners, I REST MY CASE
One party was insured whereas the other party was not insured.
The insurance company paid for the insured party to be represented by a large firm of major city centre solicitors AND for a barrister to appear on the day of the court hearing.
The case took 17 months from the inception of the claim to the date of the trial. During this time the legal costs of the solicitors' practice alone would have been substantially in excess of £1,500. Furthermore, the costs for a barrister to travel and appear in court for one day would be exponentially more than £1,500.
The other party to the dispute was not legally represented. This decision would appear to have been entirely logical and sensible, based on the fact that the origins for the creation of the Small Claims Court were that non-lawyers could bring legal actions for minor sums of money. Indeed it was and remains ridiculous to conceive that that any sensible person would contemplate the expense of paying a team of lawyers more in fees than the sum of money in dispute.
Later, during the late 1990's, widespread concerns surrounding the escalating costs and delays in the civil justice system were the very reasons why the Woolf Reforms were implemented to reduce excessive costs and delays.
However, the aims and objectives that allegedly underpin the existence of the Small Claims Court and the implementation of the Woolf Reforms appear to have tjhwarted during the preparation and trial of the case to which I make reference.
In this case, the barrister could utilise his/her specialised knowledge of the the rules of court procedure and evidence to the detriment of the party who was not legally represented and thus had no knowledge of the niceties of evidential protocol. Furthermore, the legal jargon and the honed skills of examination and cross-examination in relation to the area of civil law (e.g. law of contract) in question militated against and thus disadvantaged the non-lawyer who was a party to the dispute.
So, fellow horse owners - why are the costs of our equine insurance policies increasing so much over the past few years?
Maybe these questions might be relevant:
Q1) Who pays the solicitors PLUS allows them to also instruct barristers in a minor equine claim when a party is covered by insurance?
A: the insurance company
Q2) Who pays the insurance companies premiums?
A: horse owners
Q3) What is happening to horse owners' insurance premiums?
A: they have heavily and steadily increased over recent years.
Q4) So, whose premiums fund solicitors practices and barristers fees of, for instance, more than £1,500 EACH for say a total claim of £1,500?
A: HORSE OWNERS
Q5) Is this liasion between the insurance and legal sectors FAIR or JUST from the perspective of horse owners who are being forced to pay heavily increased premiums to fund the legal profession which simultaneously forces the costs of insurance premiums beyond the reach on many horse owners?
A: Fellow horse owners, I REST MY CASE
