Tuesday, June 16, 2009

Scottish Courts criticised over 'vexatious' rulings as cases show public denied access to justice in challenges against law firms

scslogoScotland's courts have been criticised for protecting legal firms against challenges by barring clients from courts. A recent addition to the list of vexatious litigants in Scotland, now numbering six people, has drawn attention to the fact that most of the cases on the list appear at some stage, to involve issues relating to the legal profession, with even allegations of interference in the judicial process itself, leading to criticisms today that the Scottish courts are protecting lawyers from challenges by clients who cannot obtain legal representation due to the fact that most lawyers will not take on legal actions against their colleagues.

As the Scotsman reported yesterday, the latest addition to the list of vexatious litigants follows a judgement from Lord Reed in the case of the Lord Advocate v Andrew McNamara, relating to cases raised by the pursuer dating back to 1996.

Among those mentioned, as the Scotsman reports, in the cases brought by Mr McNamara, were Edinburgh legal firm Tods Murray who were suing McNamara for fees, and Glasgow legal firm Levy & McRae, who formerly themselves represented McNamara in his own actions against Tods Murray. The Scotsman goes on to report that the cases grew to involve the former First Minister Henry McLeish - himself forced to resign over secretly renting out his offices to law firm Digby Brown, another Glasgow legal firm - Alexander Stone & Co, and Sheriff Peebles.

The glaring consistency in all those named in the various legal actions, is of course, they are all members of, or have some connection with the legal profession.

Law Society of ScotlandLaw Society of Scotland ‘strangely silent’ on public being barred from courts when cases involve challenges to lawyers. A legal insider today alleged that ‘vexatious rulings’, quietly taking place without protest, are damaging public access to justice in Scotland, and appear to be being used by the legal establishment as a last line of defence against people who find themselves unrepresented by counsel solely because their cases, which are often complicated, involve challenges to the legal profession’s way of doing things.

He said "What is glaringly obvious in the list of vexatious litigants on the Scottish Courts website is that most of the cases, the details of which are peculiarly not listed in full to give readers any leads on why such rulings have been applied, seem to have some involvement with the legal profession in some way, such as challenges to fees, poor work, misrepresentation, interference in the judicial process itself, and even involvement with the Law Society of Scotland."

He went on : "One could easily conclude the courts are closing the door on access to justice for anyone who is challenging a legal firm, and who also find themselves coincidentally lacking legal representation because of an organised boycott against their case by solicitors and the Law Society of Scotland."

John SwinneyCabinet Chief John Swinney revealed Law Society chiefs ordered solicitors to drop clients. The lack of legal representation of individuals who find themselves the target of 'vexatious litigant' rulings appears to be no accident, as Cabinet Secretary John Swinney revealed during a debate in the Scottish Parliament that Law Society chiefs have written to solicitors advising them "to drop clients", in cases which usually involve solicitors initially representing clients against other legal firms in complicated legal actions, where complaints of negligence, poor service, or falsified fee demands, and corruption against clients have been detected.

The usual pattern of obstruction then develops in that clients find themselves suddenly unrepresented nearing their proof hearings in Court after orders to cease representation are handed out by the Law Society, or as reported in some cases, secret deals are worked out between the legal firms to drop the pursuer a few days before the court case is due to start.

Cabinet Secretary John Swinney reveals Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard ordered legal firms to drop clients, leaving them unrepresented in court, like McNamara.

Kenny MacAskillJustice Secretary Kenny MacAskill 'should make guidelines’ to Judges on barring people from access to court. An official from a consumer organisation today said that while Scotland has so far escaped using the ruling to bar so many people from the courts, she believed it was time for the Justice Secretary to step in and ensure that members of the public are not being barred from access to the courts simply because their cases involve challenges against 'crooked lawyers' or involved claims against other professionals.

He said : "Given the recent ideas of a sentencing council put forward by the Scottish Government in the Criminal Justice and Licensing Bill, I believe it is now appropriate for the Justice Secretary to make strict guidelines to the courts on cases which may be considered vexatious litigation and that it may be time for a review of the Vexatious Actions Act and how it is applied in cases where it appears people are being denied access to justice especially when their case seems to involve problems with the legal profession.”

“It does appear to me that many of the cases so far which have been denied a hearing in the Scottish courts seem to involve problems with the legal profession, and a determination on the part of some that no issue of an unrepresented pursuer's case receives a fair hearing, for fear of upsetting the balance of power in the Scots legal world which most people now accept is heavily tilted against the consumer by vested interests."

As the evidence clearly shows, the court has become no place for challenging a crooked legal firm – because everyone in the court, except the client, is a member of the Law Society of Scotland .. even the judge.

A new independent venue must be developed for such cases, as the court has clearly demonstrated time & again it cannot be trusted and cannot be impartial enough in such instances where a client has been maligned by one of their colleagues, to deliver a just verdict while determining exactly the course of events which led to the litigation in the first place.

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

"Scotland's courts have been criticised for protecting legal firms against challenges by barring clients from court".

This is called preverting the course of justice, protecting criminals within the legal profession, which is not surprising given that all members of the Judiciary pay into the same insurance arrangements.

Furthermore, all High Court Judges, Advocates, Sheriffs, are law graduates who have climbed the legal ladder. What do law firms know about these people when they had case loads during their way up the ladder. Clearly a case of, if you allow clients to sink law firms through the courts , the law firms will expose the past corruption of High Court Judges, Advocates, Sheriffs, a can of worms the legal profession want kept closed. We are dealing with criminals at all levels of the profession, and as they have a monopoly on legal services, they self protect at all levels.

This is against the principles of transparency, fairness and justice. This profession through their status as self regulators are the oppressors of the Scottish People. The majority of our politicians protect the legal professions self interest, because they share common advantages through Marsh UK Royal Sun Alliance.

Anonymous said...

When the country's top law officer has to resort to an 1896 law to keep someone out of court who is trying to sue a lawyer you can just tell the whole system is corrupt !

Anonymous said...

"One could easily conclude the courts are closing the door on access to justice for anyone who is challenging a legal firm, (IS THE SYSTEM ABOUT JUSTICE OR DICTATORSHIP)? and who also find themselves coincidentally lacking legal representation because of an organised boycott against their case by solicitors and the Law Society of Scotland."

THE SWASTIKA SHOULD APPEAR OVER ALL OF SCOTLAND'S COURTS, AS THE NAZI'S DICTATORS INSIDE BLOCK ACCESS TO JUSTICE FOR VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL CLUB.

THIS IS VICTIMISATION AND CLEARLY IF CASES WERE HEARD IN AN UNBIASED WAY, LAWYERS WOULD BE PROSECUTED. A DEMOCRACY, EQUAL RIGHTS MY ARSE. INJUSTICE FOR THE LAYMAN AND NAZI PROTECTION FOR THE JUDICIARY.
THIS IS BENT JUSTICE, PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND YOU MAY GET A FAIR TRIAL IN NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, BUT YOU WILL NOT EVEN GET INTO COURT IF YOU ARE A THREAT TO THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT. THEY MUST HAVE A LOT TO HIDE?

Anonymous said...

It's difficult decide the merits of each case if the decisions are not posted on the Court's website.

Quite apart from the dubious basis of an overarching 'get out of jail' clause being allowed in the Scottish Courts, the very fact that the Court has gone to such lengths against a party who cannot find solicitors willing to represent them is very worrying indeed.

So much for the Court's duty to ensure as far as is possible an 'equality of arms' between the parties.

Anonymous said...

Cabinet Secretary John Swinney reveals Law Society Chief Kenneth Pritchard ordered legal firms to drop clients, leaving them unrepresented in court, like McNamara.

This is Pritchard intervening in due legal process, preventing lawyers representing clients who are a threat to other lawyers, I am no lawyer, but surely this is called "Perverting the course of Justice".

Why has this guy not been charged, clearly it is because he is a member of the sacrosanct legal club who's culture is one of protectionism, and to hell with the victims of crooked lawyers.

Anonymous said...

had no idea such a law existed !

If they can do that why cant they ban some of these thieving leeching lawyers from getting legal aid because of all the regular lies they are telling on their scums behalf ?

Anonymous said...

"What is glaringly obvious in the list of vexatious litigants on the Scottish Courts website is that most of the cases, the details of which are peculiarly not listed in full to give readers any leads on why such rulings have been applied, (COVER UPS) seem to have some involvement with the legal profession in some way, such as challenges to fees, poor work, misrepresentation, interference in the judicial process itself, and even involvement with the Law Society of Scotland."

It must cause Judges, Sheriffs, Advocates great distress to allow prosecutions against members of their own profession. Editing documents to make the legal profession look better is no surprise, people with warped minds who only see their colleagues as important.

Anonymous said...

Spent 10 minutes reading the judgement which is about enough to make me want to end it all but correct me if I am wrong, do judges time travel ?

Its just that Lord Reed and his companions on the bench sound like they are still in the 18th Century along with their scribblings and who is this jumped up civil serpent from the justice dept who applies to have people chucked out of court ?

Anonymous said...

Sorry I have no sympathy for any of the players in this drama
You are right though Peter - court is no place for bringing a case against another lawyer - something else will have to be thought up and I do believe you are just the person to do the thinking up on that one because if left to MacAskill nothing will be done or at best another of Kenny's infamous legislative abortions will take shape !

carry on !

Anonymous said...

John Swinney is fairly having a go at them in the clip! Well done John and it didn't end your career (or did it ?)

Anonymous said...

From here : http://www.vexatiouslitigant.org/vex_lit_history.html

The Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Bill was introduced in the House of Lords in 1898 and after being passed by both Houses became the Vexatious Actions (Scotland) Act, 1898 on August 12, 1898.

It was amended by section 20 of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1980 to prohibit appeals against refusals of leave by the Lord Ordinary. As this is the only amendment made to the original Act, the Act does not presently prohibit the continuance of proceedings already instituted prior to the making of the Vexatious Litigation Order or applications without leave in ongoing proceedings. See Hansard, (Lords), July 3, 1979. Of particular interest is the speech by the Earl of Mansfield, Minister of State for the Scottish Office. The application is brought by the HM Lord Advocate.

From 1944 onwards, HM Lord Advocate delegated to HM Solicitor-General for Scotland the "function" of making the application under section 2(1)(c) of the Law Officers’ Act, 1944.

WHY IS THIS OLD LAW BEING USED TO PROTECT BENT LAWYERS IN 2009 ??

Anonymous said...

Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill 'should make guidelines’ to Judges on barring people from access to court.

I am sure you will Kenny, you will say to judges "Keep Vexatious Clients barred from a fair court hearing". You are in the wrong job Kenny. Be gone.

Anonymous said...

Neat Trick.
Your lawyer rips you off.You cant get another lawyer to sue the crooked one.You go to court yourself and then they throw you out as a vexatious litigant to prevent your case being heard.
Time to get rid of lawyers!

Anonymous said...

So where is the great balloon Salmond when these judges are throwing us out of our own courts ?

Come on Alex throw out the judges instead (unless you are in tow to them too)

Anonymous said...

and if anyone is loony enough to try and get a lawyer to sue a lawyer after reading this they should be hung and fed to the sharks !

take my advice : find some mafia godfather who has a daughter getting married.ask him a favour and tell him your lawyer is a robbing c*nt.tell him that is the favour and lets face it whatever you are asked to do in return will be a hell of a lot less than years of letter writing to the law society and all those refusals by judges about your case.simple isnt it:)

Anonymous said...

Power of Court of Session to prohibit institution of action without leave

It shall be lawful for the Lord Advocate to apply to either Division of the Inner House of the Court of Session for an order under this Act, and if he satisfies the Court that any person has habitually and persistently instituted vexatious legal proceedings without any reasonable ground for instituting such proceedings, whether in the Court of Session or in any inferior court, and whether against the same person or against different persons, the Court may order that no legal proceedings shall be instituted by that person in the Court of Session or any other court unless he obtains the leave of [F1a judge sitting in the Outer House] on the Bills in the Court of Session, having satisfied the [F1judge] that such legal proceeding is not vexatious, and that there is prima facie ground for such proceeding. A copy of such order shall be published in the Edinburgh Gazette.
-----------------------------------

The system again protects the legal players, just rule a person intended legal action is vexatious, and the lawyers are immune from prosecution.

This reminds me of Adolf Hitler's Enabling Act, so he could ban political opposition in the Reichstag. Stop political debate then we rule with an iron fist. Similarly stop cases against lawyers, same thing, the vested interests looking after themselves. Lawyers are a mendacious profession, with too much power for the good of society. They want to act with impunity irrespective of the outcome for their victims.

Anonymous said...

Reading the Scotsman version I think McNamara's biggest mistake was to bring in the other unmentionable party into his case.

I take it Tods Murray will be baying for huge expenses in the light of Lord Reed's decision which they will probably get.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are SICK !

Why the hell are you all allowing these scumbags to keep you away from the courts when its them that did wrong ?

Has everyone forgot we just gave some politicians a good sorting out ? How about doing the crooked scumbags in the courts now too ?

Anonymous said...

I'd have to agree with Frost - I also have no respect for justice in Scotland because there is none

Anonymous said...

Time and time again we see that those who make laws protect themselves.

Lawyers do not take other lawyers to court to help victims of crooked lawyers. If however the client represents himself, they are regarded as vexatious and their case is not heard.

This area of law is a green light for lawyers to do as they please. You are above the law, treat your clients any way you want. It is therefore no coincidence that lawyers are involved in corruption and other dishonest practices. Why should they provide good service if the courts are going to throw victims of crooked lawyers cases out. This is what happens when humans self regulate, their first priority it to look after themselves. The courts have no credibility, because those who enter this profession stand for injustice, their main concern is self protection at all costs.

Anonymous said...

Sounds like McNamara was given bad advice from the start of the case although its not clear how long he has been representing himself and why any solicitors he had pulled out.
Just for the record there is no hope at all for unrepresented pursuers being able to get the better of law firms and I can say that with plenty experience as I have observed the Court of Session for years.
Maybe this is one of those kinds of cases where a Mckenzie Friend would benefit when the court gets around to allowing them !

Anonymous said...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/8103581.stm

vexatious litigants perhaps ?

Anonymous said...

Your consumer source has a point - MacAskill should intervene when the public are barred from court in any instance.As soon as that happens it ceases to become a judicial matter as it is definitely not in the public interest for people to be kicked out of court for any reason whatsoever.

Oh and incidentally I dont buy the line of someone having to ask a judge for permission to take legal action.That amounts to judicial dictatorship which I hope we dont live in yet even if some of your readers think we do!

Peter Cherbi said...

Thanks for all your comments & emails on this article.

I agree with those who say the public cannot be excluded from the courts .. and that such a matter as it develops falls to our elected representatives to deal with and rectify.

As I said in the article, I do not believe the court can fulfil an impartial role in hearing evidence and judging cases involving litigation against or issues connected with members of the legal profession, simply because as we all know, everyone in the court except the poor client, and spectators in the gallery, are members of the Law Society of Scotland.I would liken trying to get a fair hearing out of that lot to the chances of success someone might have asking a member of a firing squad to miss. In short, it wont happen, as many of us who have already tried to take such cases to court know well from experience.

Perhaps, taking the title of the Scotsman article at its best, the tables should be turned on those who exclude members of the public from access to justice, who, making such decisions which impact severely on people's lives, should themselves be told "For you, the law is over".

A career in law, whether it be a lawyer, or a serving judge is not about excluding the public from the law, it is about serving the public and the law.

Anyone not capable of that should, in my opinion, have their legal careers ended in the public interest for it is certainly not in the public interest for people to be excluded from access to justice.

Anonymous said...

You said "A career in law, whether it be a lawyer, or a serving judge is not about excluding the public from the law, it is about serving the public and the law.

Anyone not capable of that should, in my opinion, have their legal careers ended in the public interest for it is certainly not in the public interest for people to be excluded from access to justice."

Good words Peter.I am proud to be one of your readers and I completely agree with you.

Keep up the good work You are a credit to our country!

Anonymous said...

One law for us and another for the rest.
If a politician had said what Lord Reed did and tried to justify it as protecting the courts they would have been sacked and so should the judge for banning people from justice just as you say Peter.

Anonymous said...

What we have here is a system with backup's to protect dishonest lawyers. The lawyers who sit in our courts are as corrupt as the Law Society, they pass sentence on members of the public, and the same rules do not apply to them.

They are not fit to judge anyone, the system has evolved the way it is, and they will hold on their legal protection for as long as possible. Criminals all of them.

Anonymous said...

man those scottish lawyers are worst than nazis !

Anonymous said...

The world we live in is not designed for human happiness. Many things depend on finance, health, fair treatment, in other words balance. But humans like kicking the ---- out of each other.

Crooked politicians, bent legal systems, conflicts local and global tear at the human spirit. Most people do not give a damn about anyone but themselves, what they can get, but one day this will come home to roost, perhaps not in my lifetime, but something will happen internationally that will trigger a nuclear response.

The economic mess we are in is down to greedy financiers, who like lawyers create untold misery and then walk away with massive pensions, greedy MP's, the eternal conflict in the Middle East, what a bloody mess on a speck of dust called Earth in the vastness of our solar system.

The planet is a mess, and humans will never be able to sort it out. The greed factor will eliminate that possibility. There is injustice everywhere, just lift a newspaper, turn on the TV, look into your own families, and we humans are meant to be intelligent. I do not think so, conflict, conflict, conflict, that is the way it has always been, and history and contemporary events dictate it will stay that way.

I think George Orwell said something like "On balance life is suffering, and only fools and the very young think otherwise". It is a tragedy that there is so much conflict on our wonderful planet.

Anonymous said...

Can I say kick the judges out instead ?

Its our courts anyway and how much are they getting paid from the taxpayer ?

Anonymous said...

Clearly what we have here is a licence for lawyer criminality. Lawyers know their colleagues in and out of court will protect them.
All the more reason for clients to keep their money out of law firms.

We should not be surprised, those who train in law have warped minds, only the profession matter, like doctors and accountants when there is a conflict of interest they only see their colleagues viewpoint.

Three of the omnipotent professions in this country self regulate, a situation that must end to protect patients and clients.

Anonymous said...

AOL NEWS Wednesday, 17 June 2009, 04:49 GMT

MP Binley in expenses row over rent

A Conservative MP reportedly claimed more than £50,000 in taxpayer-funded expenses to rent a flat from his own company.

Brian Binley, MP for Northampton South, claimed £1,500 a month to rent the flat in Pimlico, central London, for more than three years despite House of Commons rules banning MPs from renting properties from themselves or their companies, according to the Daily Telegraph.

Mr Binley, 67, was first told the expenses claims were not allowed in April 2006 but he was permitted to continue claiming after making an appeal to Speaker Michael Martin, the newspaper said, and Mr Martin did not rule the claims must stop until April this year.

Mr Binley has not had to repay the £57,000 he claimed while the Speaker considered the issue over the past three years, the paper says.

Mr Binley, who was elected to the House of Commons in May 2005, began claiming £1,500 a month for the flat in February 2006.

He is chairman of BCC Marketing Services which bought the property just two months earlier for £345,000, the newspaper said.

Mr Binley could not immediately be contacted for comment.
-----------------------------------
Self regulators are all corrupt, we should remember that many MP's were against expenses claims being published, for the same reason as vexacious claims against lawyers, self protection. A fair system, we think not. Generous to our MP's, lawyers, doctors, accountants, the first screw the taxpayer and the other three self regulate like the MP's did, so they can self protect. If Lord Gill is reading this, I hope he considers the many victims of lawyers who are barred from justice from a bent corrupt legal establishment.

You people do not live in the real world, you line your pockets, have draconian legal protection, and an ex policeman from East Kilbride is jailed for benefit fraud. Time and time again we see lawyers who committ serious crimes, let off with a slap on the wrist, because they are a member of the club. But woe betide a member of the public, any woman who cannot make ends meet to feed her kids, if she committs benefit fraud she will recieve a just punishment. You lot steal legally, because you make the rules, then apply a different interpretation of the rules to everyone not in the professions.

When I tried to get a lawyer to sue another lawyer for me, I met an iron curtain of resistance, Law Firms, The Law Society, the Court they did not want to know. My advice to readers, put your case on the internet and stick to the facts. You will never get justice through a system that is reviled by lawyers victims. In my circumstances not one lawyer I went to said to me you do not have a case, on the contrary, they knew my case could not fail in court. They protected a crook in Ross Harper Solicitors, but they would do this irrespective of the lawyer or firm. We do not have a justice system, I promise you that is a fact.

Anonymous said...

ANOTHER ONE PETER

Payback time for dishonest lawyer
chris.havergal@cambridge-news.co.uk

A LAWYER who made thousands of pounds by breaking insider trading laws at one of the region's top high-tech firms has been ordered to pay back all the money.

Christopher McQuoid, of Aldous Court, Fowlmere, was the in-house solicitor at now-defunct wireless development company TTP Communications when it was taken over by US mobile giant Motorola.

The 40-year-old was released on Monday from an eight-month jail term for tipping off his father-in-law James Melbourne about the strictly confidential takeover deal and advising him to buy shares which would more than double in price.

Melbourne spent £20,000 on more than 150,000 shares in TTP Communications, based on Melbourn Science Park, and made £49,000 when the buyout was made public and the share value soared.

The 75-year-old, whose eight-month prison sentence was suspended because of his age, split the proceeds of the scam down the middle with his daughter's husband.

At Southwark Crown Court this week, lawyers for the pair - who had protested their innocence throughout the trial in March - argued they should only have to pay back their profits, and not the sums they invested. (A LAWYER WOULD NEVER FIGHT FOR A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC LIKE THIS).

But Judge Peter Testar decided they should cough up what they put in on top of what they made - plus interest. (GOOD ON YOU JUDGE TESTAR).

McQuoid was ordered to pay back £35,782, while Melbourne faces a bill for £34,996.

In both cases the profits from the share deals are frozen in bank accounts, but they will have to find the rest from their own pockets.

McQuoid, who is married with one child and has another on the way, has assets of £250,000, while his father-in-law, of Ripley, Derbyshire, has £172,000.

Each has six months to pay or will face 16 months in jail.

Judge Testar indicated he will not be ordering McQuoid to pay costs but he has adjourned to decide on Melbourne.

At the end of the trial, where both of the defendants were convicted of insider trading, the judge told McQuoid he had been "deliberate and calculating" when he tipped off his father-in-law. (A TRAIT IN ALL CROOKED LAWYERS).

The jury rejected Melbourne's suggestion the purchase had been "just a gamble, a shot in the dark".

(THESE SHOTS IN THE DARK NEVER RESULT IN LAWYERS LOSING MONEY, IN THIS CASE THIS PAIR HAVE REAPED WHAT THEY HAD SOWN. BUT THIS IS COMPANY FRAUD, WOULD THE OUTCOME HAVE BEEN THE SAME IF THEY DEFRAUDED ONE OF THIS LAWYERS NON BUSINESS CLIENTS?. A PAIR OF GREEDY CRIMINALS WHO HAVE MET THEIR NEMISIS).

Anonymous said...

THE INDEPENDENT PETER I THINK YOU WILL BE INTERESTED IN THIS ARTICLE. PLEASE VISIT SITE FOR MORE INFORMATION.www.independent.co.uk/money/spend-save/thousands

Thousands to be hit by 'dishonest' law firms

People are being left in the lurch by lawyers forced to close. A new service could help
By Neasa MacErlean

Saturday, 6 June 2009
THE INDEPENDENT

More than 100 law firms are expected to be closed down by the regulatory authorities this year as the legal profession and its clients go through a recession-related "annus horribilis". Tens of thousands of people will find that they are left in the lurch mid-divorce or half way through a house sale – while officers from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA) take control of these distressed firms.

The SRA has noticed a dramatic, 50 per cent increase in severe problems at small firms of one, two or three partners since January. Last year, it took over and closed 71 such businesses, but in 2009 it is on course to close more than 100 – the highest figure since 2001.

"We are, regretfully, finding an increase in dishonesty," says Geoff Negus of the SRA, which has jurisdiction over England and Wales. "Times are tight and some solicitors do not always respect the fact that the client account is the client's money, not theirs." Some lawyers are simply abandoning their practices and others, who may be totally honest, find they cannot cope anymore as their cash flow dries up.

But this is just one sign of a profession under pressure. While most law firms will survive, many will take short cuts and, whether they know it or not, clients will pay the price. It is mainly for this reason that Moore Blatch Resolve, a specialist personal injury legal practice, unveiled a new shop window on Monday, the website: www.claimsagainstsolicitors.com.

Moore Blatch Resolve, which has 4 per cent of the UK personal injury market, believes a significant number of injury claims are handled by inexperienced, generalist or overworked lawyers who do not understand or appreciate the steps they need to take to maximise claims for clients.

Moore Blatch recently won £500,000 for a motorbike dispatch rider by helping him to sue the law firm that handled his original claim. He had gone to that firm after getting a head injury in an accident that was not his fault. The solicitor there made the crucial mistake of sending him, for an expert opinion, to a retired neurologist who misdiagnosed and understated his injury.

Anonymous said...

I agree with you Peter.No one should be excluded from access to justice especially when it involves crooked lawyers.If something isnt done now about this we will end up with mission creep where judges will be able to exclude whole groups of people simply because they dont like the tone of their cases

Anonymous said...

I think Simon Di Rollo put it very well when he said "It is probably more common that cases are defended without merit than raised by party litigants for frivolous or vexatious reasons"

That sums up the whole process of trying to raise an action against a law firm or indeed many other professions.

Good reporting Peter and I liked the clip of John Swinney.I suspect there will have been many letters sent out of that nature by the Law Society he talks about in the clip.

Anonymous said...

Cambridge Online Dictionary

Vexatious--difficult to deal with and causing a lot of annoyance, worry or argument.

Clearly if the vexatious litigants worry our legal professionals the latter have much to hide. We do not have a balanced legal system because people cannot get a fair hearing due to professional bias, like Hitler's treatment of the Jewish people on Kristallnacht (when Jewish intellectuals books were burned and religious buildings set on fire. The court would destroy our documents against lawyers).

The evidence indicates what many of us already know, if a member of the public wants to sue a lawyer, the courts might as well bolt their doors shut. Two tier justice in action, shame on Kenny MacAskill for allowing this to continue.

Anonymous said...

Dishonest lawyer struck off

Published Date: 19 October 2006

A lawyer from Preston built up a property portfolio by taking more than £238,000 from clients, including First World War veterans, a tribunal heard.

Ian Desmond, the 53-year-old former chief executive of the Lancashire law firm Marsdens, was struck off by the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal after it heard details of "the most appalling dishonesty". He now faces a police investigation.

Inderjit Johal, for the Law Society, said Desmond was a trustee of the estates of two dead clients, Thomas Smalley and Richard Tomlinson, as well as a charitable trust called the Old Men's Brotherhood, set up to provide support for First World War veterans.

When the Law Society launched a probe into Desmond's affairs in March 2005, they found a shortfall of £188,000 in Mr Smalley's client account, £8,000 missing from Mr Tomlinson's account and a further £42,000 shortfall in the Old Men's Brotherhood account.

Desmond, of Mallowdale, Fulwood, admitted dishonestly misusing clients' funds and the tribunal ordered he should be thrown out of the profession and ordered him to pay costs of £3,623.

The panel heard that Desmond resigned as chief executive of Marsdens, based in Ribblesdale Place, Preston, on February 4 last year. A spokesman for the law firm said the clients affected had been fully compensated.

Anonymous said...

DAILY RECORD

Lawyer accused of stealing more than £400K from dead client.

Jan 28 2009

A LAWYER has denied stealing more than £400,000 from a dead client.

Michael Karus, 47, appeared at Edinburgh Sheriff Court charged with embezzling the money from the estate of Edith Hampton following her death in March 2003.

It is claimed he took £413,000 from the Edinburgh woman's estate in the two days after her death and a further £3500 in January 2004.

His trial date has been set for May.

Anonymous said...

Scottish MP ‘devastated’ by deselection over expenses
MICHAEL SETTLE, UK Political Editor June 17 2009

Jim Devine last night became the latest victim of the MPs' expenses scandal after Labour's ruling body unanimously decided he should be deselected following queries over his claims.
-------------------------------------
Well Mr Devine, if I had my way I would kick the lot of you out, I am sick of hearing "I was acting within the rules". What a lot of nonsense, the rules are so lax you have all been doing what you want for a long time.

The public are furious, and deselection is a meagre punishment for MP's who will certainly not face charges of fraud. While the benefit queues get longer, you lot have your salaries plus expenses, ripping off the people who elected you in the first place.

We should get an old cruise liner, rename it the HMS Westminster, and give you all a nice cruise, then scuttle it mid Atlantic, send you to Davy Jones's locker.

How can someone (not Mr Devine)who has claimed taxpayers money for a flat their company owns, avoid prosecution?
We should have a flatted complex near Westminster, for you MP's instead of second homes, one bed flats.

Anonymous said...

I have read your blog Mr Cherbi and I know what its like to go up against lawyers.I made a complaint to the Law Society in 2007 after our sons lawyer helped himself to the money that was raised to help him get help with medical expenses after an accident at school sports.
The Law Society refused to listen to us and tried to claim no money had been taken when even the school's headmaster wrote in with the accounts showing a 23 thousand deficit in the fund which the lawyers company had been trusted to look after.
I have to say I am disgusted by all the covering up letters from the Law Society including names familiar in your blog of Philip Yelland.They have sickened me and the trouble this has caused nearly split my family.I completly agree with you these lawyers are nothing but monsters and am at wits end over all this after 2 years writing and getting nowhere If anyone is out there reading this please help us break the power of these horrible lawyers have to cover up their crimes
Help please

Anonymous said...

While our jails keep filling with young men and women whose property offences amount to nothing like the extent of something such as this, when our schools and hospitals on their impoverished budgets have to account for every single penny spent in their desperate attempt to hold together the fabric of a decent society, those in high offices of government act with impunity.

Scott Veitch, Reader in Law at the University of Glasgow.


Taken from the Scotland Against Crooked Lawyers Website www.sacl/info

Anonymous said...

Minister quits over expenses probe
Last Updated: Wednesday, 17 June 2009, 16:46 GMT AOL NEWS.
Junior Treasury minister Kitty Ussher has resigned from the Government over expenses allegations

Junior Treasury minister Kitty Ussher has resigned from the Government following allegations over her claims for parliamentary expenses.

I bet she acted "within the rules".

Anonymous said...

I can't understand what all this rant is about. We, as tax payers, fund the court service and quite frankly I don't want my hard earned money being used to indulge the fantasies of a handful of vexatious litigants. If you bother to read any of these judgements you will see the pursuers were not deemed vexatious because of their legal actions against solicitors. It was because they are, at the very least, deluded fantasists who see conspiracies everywhere - they'd give Al Fayed a run for his money! Invariably law firms become embroiled for no other reason than they represent the vexatious litigant's opponents and, according to their conspiracy theories, everyone is in it against them.

I know one of the Scottish vexatious litigants personally and quite frankly I wish I didn't. I can't speak for all of them, but the one that I know almost certainly suffers from any number of personality disorders. He has raised endless cases without merit and despite being decalred vexatious continues to issue writs against anyone he takes a dislike to.

Furthermore, you need to get this into perspective. Scotland has declared only a handful of these fantasists vexatious. On the basis of population England and Wales should have declared between 60-70 litigants to be vexatious. It hasn't, the list of vexatious litigants in England and Wales runs to over 200! Surely evidence that the Scottish courts approach this issue with caution and only use as a last resort.

With waiting lists growing ever longer in the Courts do we really want valuable court time and public money being used to indulge these fantasists? I for one do not.

Remember also, being declared vexatious does not prevent anyone from litigating. It only places an obligation on the vexatious litigant to obtain permission before initiating proceedings. To obtain permission they must first show their case has merit.

Go ahead allow these fantasists free access to the Courts - it's your own money you are wasting to indulge them!

Anonymous said...

The Scottish Courts are there to serve the public, not the other way around.

A part of that service of paramount importance is justice for all, but the culture of the system is clear with these Vexacious Rulings, which protect guilty legal professionals with no prospect of justice for the victims. This cannot be sustained by the judiciary, because it undermines the Scottish Legal System, by showing the courts are a barrier to justice if that means a lawyer will be prosecuted.

Anonymous said...

This is from the Moore Blatch Website, claimsagainstsolicitors.com

"Have You Had A Solicitor Mishandle Your Claim

If you have we can help you. If your claim was struck out or settled for less than it was worth because of poor preparation, we can quickly investigate for little and often at no cost to you.

Did your solicitor miss a key deadline, or in a complex medical negligence case instruct the wrong expert or ask the wrong questions? Did your solicitor properly investigate all potential categories of damage and loss? If not, we can help you".

-----------------------------------
The problem for me is that I could never trust these people, although this firm is in England, once bitten twice shy as the saying goes.

Trusting lawyers to get damages from other lawyers is like trusting a salt water crocodile not to eat you. A filthy profession, I look at their photo's on their website and alarm bells ring. Lawyers are driven by their self interest, not their clients.

Peter Cherbi said...

# Anonymous @ 2.22pm

Yes, I agree with Mr Di Rollo's comments too.

# Anonymous @ 9.31pm

If you could post another comment marked "Do not publish" or contact me with your details I will ensure your case is passed to a newspaper for wider publication.

Naming & shaming those involved in your case and what they did might also bring out victims of the same solicitor.

# Anonymous @ 9.55pm

The rant is all in the Judge's opinion which you can read on the Scottish Courts website.

If you had bothered to read the article you would see I am proposing that such cases (as I am specifically reporting that involves challenges against the legal profession) be taken out of the courts and put in a venue more free from judgement by colleagues of the solicitor or law firm being challenged for their conduct.

I also agree that taxpayers should not have to pay for the time such cases take up in the courts - so make the polluter pay instead - the legal profession.

As for the rights of litigants everywhere, vexatious or not, I think the whole thing was summed up for me by a solicitor himself, who disclosed one of his clients, a Hep C sufferer & victim of the use of contaminated blood products in Scotland was warned he would be tagged a "vexatious litigant" by Counsel representing the NHS.

Maybe you can go explain your definition of "fantasists" to him or explain why he might end up dying before he gets access to the courts just because the NHS, their legal teams and the insurers are coming up with ploys such as these to keep him out.

And on that point, as another solicitor said to me today, he wished the Insurers who have raised the Judicial Review challenge against the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill should themselves be called "vexatious litigants" as their intentions to strip out the right of asbestos victims to claim for pleural plaques is most certainly a waste of court time & public money.

So, who do you think deserves public money more in those cases ? insurers who would rather see people drop dead or people trying to secure a hearing in court on what probably started out as a small case which could have been settled by a fully independent & impartial tribunal (which seems not to exist in any venue in Scotland to-date) ?

Anonymous said...

Interesting reply of yours :
"So, who do you think deserves public money more in those cases ? insurers who would rather see people drop dead or people trying to secure a hearing in court on what probably started out as a small case which could have been settled by a fully independent & impartial tribunal (which seems not to exist in any venue in Scotland to-date) ?"

I say F*ck the insurers and give the small guy a break instead and oh yes make their anti asbestos claims case VEXATIOUS !

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I can't understand what all this rant is about. We, as tax payers, fund the court service and quite frankly I don't want my hard earned money being used to indulge the fantasies of a handful of vexatious litigants.

Well my friend, I am a taxpayer too but unless you are a lawyer one of your family at some point in their lives could become a vexatious litigant.

I assume from your views you have never been the victim of a crooked lawyer, but any member of your family or the public can be drawn into a legal battle through no fault of their own.

Back to the subject of taxes, lawyers make hugh sums of money from legal aid, yes our money, like the Westminster parasites who have taken our money. I hope you are never the victim of a dishonest lawyer, but if this happens you will understand why there is an anti lawyer internet industry growing in the western world. Lawyers victims have no rights, and that is an affront to justice. We fight on.

Anonymous said...

Lawyers are like parasitic organisms, preying on their hosts. It is a profession which draws the scum in society, those who will rob old ladies, like Harold Shipman, change wills to make the lawyer rich.

When I see a law graduate in the press I think there is another criminal, filth to be avoided at all costs.

Anonymous said...

9.55pm

Oh dear.A defender of the court.

"With waiting lists growing ever longer in the Courts do we really want valuable court time and public money being used to indulge these fantasists? I for one do not."

I'm inclined to think many clients I know are a little vexatious but would you rather have public money & valuable court time used to bring cases which pay millions to prisoners for the 'abuse' of their alleged human rights they took away from their victims by committing a crime ?

If you are talking about the actual cases at hand I think you will find Mr Cherbi is correct.Most or all of the vexatious 6 were indulged enough with court time obtained by legal firms for just long enough to give them a chance to begin an action for fees recovery before the litigant was judged vexatious.

I understand McNamara himself was hit with a photocopying bill in the tens of thousands during the 90's by Tods Murray who claimed they spent 1329.5 hours in front of a xerox.Surely anyone in their right mind (possibly with the exception of yourself) would challenge this.

Just what exactly is your chip on taxpayers money being wasted in the courts ? Personally I feel judges are overpaid and awarded pensions the rest of us could never hope to enjoy (except a few ex-bankers).

You might even sound a little vexatious yourself !

Anonymous said...

Details of MP expenses blacked out
Last Updated: Thursday, 18 June 2009, 05:40 GMT AOL NEWS


Kitty Ussher resigned from the Government over allegations about her expenses

Details of MPs' expenses claims have finally been published by the House of Commons - but with much of the detail that led to a public outcry blacked out.

The release of tens of thousands of claim forms and receipts on the Parliament website more than a year after the High Court ordered their publication is likely to lead to demands for greater openness.

It is impossible to identify many of the abuses which came out as a result of the earlier leak of the same material to the Daily Telegraph before crucial details were blacked out.

There are no addresses for MPs' homes, meaning it would have been virtually impossible to identify so-called "flipping", whereby MPs switch the designation of their second properties to maximise their claims.

Also redacted are the names and details of people and companies to whom payments were made using expenses, and correspondence between MPs and the Commons Fees Office has also been removed.

Among the material which has not been released is the notorious schedule of expenses submitted by Tory MP Douglas Hogg, which included the cost of clearing the moat at his Lincolnshire country home and fellow Tory Sir Peter Vigger's disallowed £1,645 claim for a duck house.

The redactions mean it is impossible to tell where, for example, Luton South MP Margaret Moran's second home was. She has announced her retirement from Parliament after criticism that she spent £22,500 treating dry rot at a property in Southampton, more than 100 miles from her constituency.

Junior Treasury minister Kitty Ussher became the latest scalp on Wednesday night when she quit the Government following allegations that she avoided paying capital gains tax by "flipping" her second home.

Liberal Democrat treasury spokesman Vince Cable claimed the heavily censored information had been "compromised", saying: "Had it not been for the Daily Telegraph a lot of this stuff would not have come out."

Cabinet minister Hilary Benn told Radio 4's Today programme of the expenses scandal: "It's been very, very damaging for confidence in Parliament, but when something goes wrong in life the most important thing is to hold your hands up and say it shouldn't have happened and then you have got to put it right."

YES BRITISH PEOPLE WE ARE DEALING WITH CRIMINALS, THE ONLY WORD APPLICABLE TO THEM. THEY DO NOT MIND PUBLIC EXPENDITURE WHEN THEY ARE LINING THEIR OWN ACCOUNTS.

Anonymous said...

The system is designed to protect those in power, politicians, lawyers. accountants. Doctors, also self regulate, corrupt.

Anonymous said...

Criminal trial without jury allowed
Last Updated: Thursday, 18 June 2009, 05:40 GMT AOL NEWS

The Court of Appeal has passed a historic ruling allowing the first ever criminal trial to be heard without a jury.

Three judges in London, headed by the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Judge, gave the go-ahead because of a "very significant" danger of jury tampering.

Lord Judge said the case concerned "very serious criminal activity" arising out of a robbery at a warehouse at Heathrow Airport in 2004.

Allowing a prosecution appeal to have a trial without a jury, Lord Judge said "the danger of jury tampering and the subversion of the process of trial by jury is very significant".

Reporting restrictions ban the identification of four defendants.

Their trial "will take place without a jury in due course".

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

I can't understand what all this rant is about. We, as tax payers, fund the court service and quite frankly I don't want my hard earned money being used to indulge the fantasies of a handful of vexatious litigants.
-------------------------------------

A few words of advice my friend, we are all human and you, or one of your children, family could have to go to hospital at any time and someone makes a mistake which has devastating consequences for you, like the Hep C victims. Doctors do a good job, I have been treated for pneumonia twice, the first being near fatal. But they also cover up especially when reputations and money are at risk.

Let's be fair, people make mistakes, and other taxpayers reading this might be paying to help you if you end up in a situation where you are entitled to damages. You would not be complaining about taxpayers funding your fight then, would you?

I am a thinker, I always look at a situation from both sides, but please be careful about this because any one of us can be the victim of negligence on the roads, in hospital, by a crooked lawyer, doctor. The difference is that laypersons have no rights in comparison with powerful professions, who are all insured by the same insurers, and share a common bond to stop litigation against their insurers. You could be a victim at any time and I have no doubt your views on this would change then. All you need is to go into hospital, someone makes a mistake and the consequences for you are devastating. Then the NHS lawyers make you a vexatious litigant, I rest my case.

Anonymous said...

When you go into a lawyers office remember you are visiting a professional who is mostly above the law. Why is this?

If you go public because your lawyer turns out to be a crook, you may get the Law Society Nazi's at your door to teach you a lesson, like the lesson the Law Society accountant Mr Cummings got for exposing bent lawyers. He was attacked and he works for the Law Society. What chance will you have?

They all consider your money to belong to them, because their loyal peers at the Law Society will cover everything up. The most crooked graduate criminals in Scotland.

Anonymous said...

“If you had bothered to read the article you would see I am proposing that such cases (as I am specifically reporting that involves challenges against the legal profession) be taken out of the courts and put in a venue more free from judgement by colleagues of the solicitor or law firm being challenged for their conduct.

I also agree that taxpayers should not have to pay for the time such cases take up in the courts - so make the polluter pay instead - the legal profession.”

Totally agree the polluter should pay, but that was the litigant. Again I ask why, should the tax payer indulge these fantasists? Look at the facts of this case – and try reading the judgements not the article in the Scotsman - an action was taken against McNamara by his accountants for unpaid fees, that turned into legal actions by McNamara against several firms of solicitors, a Sheriff and the then First Minister. It was pointed out in the judgement that one of the characteristics of the pursuer(s) were the inability to take no for an answer. Even Frost who was party to these actions eventually bowed out and McNamara himself was forced to admit his actions were a load of nonsense. All of these actions were little more than attempts to avoid accepting a judgement against him.

So, given that it was McNamara and Frost in the wrong, why should these cases be taken out of the normal court process and accommodated in some new quango funded by the legal profession? Isn’t that just asking the legal profession to indulge these fantasists? Why should they do that?

“As for the rights of litigants everywhere, vexatious or not, I think the whole thing was summed up for me by a solicitor himself, who disclosed one of his clients, a Hep C sufferer & victim of the use of contaminated blood products in Scotland was warned he would be tagged a "vexatious litigant" by Counsel representing the NHS.”

Yet another un-named “source”. Well, of course it was unfortunate that a number of people were infected by contaminated blood products. But that does not give an unequivocal right to raise collateral actions that have no relevance and do not advance the principal action.

We have a right to use the Courts system to obtain justice but with that right comes responsibility to behave in a reasonable manner. Hep C sufferer or not, the obligation to conduct actions in a reasonable manner is not lifted merely because the pursuer feels they have suffered a great wrong.

Yes there is a problem with the Hep C cases, but it will not be resolved through the Courts due to difficulties over who knew what and when they knew it. This will only be resolved at Government level and regrettably successive governments have dragged their heals over this.

“And on that point, as another solicitor said to me today, he wished the Insurers who have raised the Judicial Review challenge against the Damages (Asbestos-related Conditions) (Scotland) Bill should themselves be called "vexatious litigants" as their intentions to strip out the right of asbestos victims to claim for pleural plaques is most certainly a waste of court time & public money.”

Ah, another un-named “source” . There is a real problem here in whether pleural plaques are a harm in the legal sense. They are not a pre-cursor to asbestosis and generally have no overall impact on health. So yes, why shouldn’t insurers challenge the legislation?

And don’t kid yourself, if the insurers do have to pay out, who do you think will foot the bill? Frankly I would rather the insurer challenged badly written and ill-conceived legislation rather than see my insurance premiums go up.

Anonymous said...

"Totally agree the polluter should pay, but that was the litigant. Again I ask why, should the tax payer indulge these fantasists? Look at the facts of this case – and try reading the judgements not the article in the Scotsman - an action was taken against McNamara by his accountants for unpaid fees, that turned into legal actions by McNamara against several firms of solicitors, a Sheriff and the then First Minister. It was pointed out in the judgement that one of the characteristics of the pursuer(s) were the inability to take no for an answer. Even Frost who was party to these actions eventually bowed out and McNamara himself was forced to admit his actions were a load of nonsense. All of these actions were little more than attempts to avoid accepting a judgement against him."
Oh dear oh dear. So much mis-information. An action for unpaid fees by accountants who had acted negligently was raised against McNamara. That was counter-claimed by McNamara and he won.
Walking away from all of this and trying to put it behind him the only thing McNamara did was raise a complaint re Tods Murray's conduct (they had to be sacked during the course of his actions) while they handled his case. Tods Murray's response? Two years after they had ceased acting for McNamara, but shortly after he raised the complaint, they raised a false summons against McNamara claiming there were outstanding fees remaining unpaid and arrested large amounts of cash on the basis of that lie. One is forced to become a defendant is such circumstances. But with that action the Law Society halts investigations into complaints as the action is 'pre judicial.' And so we have a situation where a false summons has been issued, with arrestments, without any proof of debt...what do you do? Seek legal advice of course. Therein lays the truth of what appears to be a relish of litigation. Now we know the rest of this game as has been amply commented on here.
So these solicitors rely on their own system protecting them which it does. If things are so serious they rely on attrition....run out of money or get ill, or maybe it can be kept running so long the client may even die before the dispute even reaches court. I for one am behind McNamara every step of the way. There are few whose case is so strong it exposes the entire system as corrupt and self serving. Finding him a vexatious litigant is a superb own goal for the Scottish legal profession exposing them as the criminals they actually are.

And as for the commentator who claims they don't want to see taxpayers cash wasted. Do you think ANY of this stuff gets legal aid? Silly Billy! What cost to the taxpayer? There is none. It’s the victims who pay.

This profession is ruining the Scottish economy. Our judiciary and executive are supposed to be independent of one another. We have too many lawyers in politics at the moment to make this independence meaningful. Commercial disputes are a normal occurrence, however, seek legal assistance in Scotland for that dispute and the chances are you will lose your company win or lose.

Anonymous said...

"Totally agree the polluter should pay, but that was the litigant. Again I ask why, should the tax payer indulge these fantasists? Look at the facts of this case – and try reading the judgements not the article in the Scotsman - an action was taken against McNamara by his accountants for unpaid fees, that turned into legal actions by McNamara against several firms of solicitors, a Sheriff and the then First Minister. It was pointed out in the judgement that one of the characteristics of the pursuer(s) were the inability to take no for an answer. Even Frost who was party to these actions eventually bowed out and McNamara himself was forced to admit his actions were a load of nonsense. All of these actions were little more than attempts to avoid accepting a judgement against him."
Oh dear oh dear. So much mis-information. An action for unpaid fees by accountants who had acted negligently was raised against McNamara. That was counter-claimed by McNamara and he won.
Walking away from all of this and trying to put it behind him the only thing McNamara did was raise a complaint re Tods Murray's conduct (they had to be sacked during the course of his actions) while they handled his case. Tods Murray's response? Two years after they had ceased acting for McNamara, but shortly after he raised the complaint, they raised a false summons against McNamara claiming there were outstanding fees remaining unpaid and arrested large amounts of cash on the basis of that lie. One is forced to become a defendant is such circumstances. But with that action the Law Society halts investigations into complaints as the action is 'pre judicial.' And so we have a situation where a false summons has been issued, with arrestments, without any proof of debt...what do you do? Seek legal advice of course. Therein lays the truth of what appears to be a relish of litigation. Now we know the rest of this game as has been amply commented on here.
So these solicitors rely on their own system protecting them which it does. If things are so serious they rely on attrition....run out of money or get ill, or maybe it can be kept running so long the client may even die before the dispute even reaches court. I for one am behind McNamara every step of the way. There are few whose case is so strong it exposes the entire system as corrupt and self serving. Finding him a vexatious litigant is a superb own goal for the Scottish legal profession exposing them as the criminals they actually are.

And as for the commentator who claims they don't want to see taxpayers cash wasted. Do you think ANY of this stuff gets legal aid? Silly Billy! What cost to the taxpayer? There is none. It’s the victims who pay.

This profession is ruining the Scottish economy. Our judiciary and executive are supposed to be independent of one another. We have too many lawyers in politics at the moment to make this independence meaningful. Commercial disputes are a normal occurrence, however, seek legal assistance in Scotland for that dispute and the chances are you will lose your company win or lose.

Anonymous said...

Same as in NSW Australia. Its disgusting. Except in NSW Australia if you are better and win against the Crown and Police you are vexatious. Its a circus! NSW Police and Crown are Vexatious litigants in the true sense of the word and meaning in both countries.

http://members.optusnet.com.au/craig_abetts/


"You cannot strengthen one by weakening another; and you cannot add to the stature of a dwarf by cutting off the leg of a giant."

Benjamin Franklin