Getting my TDS deposit back

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

They find against the claimant on the basis the claimant acted wholey unreasonably in bring about the claim in the first place.

I've had a case recently which was over an initial claim of £25. If it had reached court, costs & expenses would have run into several hundred pounds. Fortunately the defendant knew he would lose and settled through mediation for the initial claim plus a further £25 court filing fee (online)

Yes, but failure to follow a pre-action protocol doesn't render it unreasonable for a claim to be brought. It might well go to costs, of course.

The case you refer to (£25) sounds more like a de minimus principle - too small a claim - rather than pre-action issues.

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

I'll let Neverdispairgirl respond to that herself if she wishes. All I'll say is that I do accept she has a good general understanding of many aspects of the law and I value many of her posts.

Btw, you don't often see a barrister in a small claims court (although they do sometimes appear) - the problem is their huge fees are not recoverable from the losing party, so the employing party has to pay them whatever the outcome of the case.

Thank you. There are vast areas of the law about which I know nothing, and I say so if I don't know anything. And, of course, anything I say on these boards is a general comment, not specific legal advice.

Barristers turn up in small claims from time to time, but as you say, not often. It's not usually cost-effective.

"huge fees" is a bit of an exaggeration, though. OH did some small claims cases as a pupil, for £150 a go, as I recall.

Premier_2

tbs624 wrote: »

I am getting used to your circular arguments now but you can see that my post no 27 responds to your post no 26, which was making a different point.

My post #26 is a clarification of my post #13, part of which was quoted and questioned. I think you'll find poth posts #13 & #26 in a similar vein, post #13 being in response to a post by the OP in post #6.

I'm not sure how or why you got involved.
Please do try to keep up and not just argue for the sake of it. :cool:

Premier_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Yes, but failure to follow a pre-action protocol doesn't render it unreasonable for a claim to be brought. It might well go to costs, of course.

The case you refer to (£25) sounds more like a de minimus principle - too small a claim - rather than pre-action issues.

Perhaps you misunderstood me. The claim for £25 was certainly not de minimis (too small to be taken seriously) - it's exactly the type of claim a small claims court was set up to resolve.

It was a case I was bringing against someone, and I would have definitely won. It was so crazy, even the defendant admitted in the defence that he owed me the money but just wasn't going to pay it me. I think he thought I'd just give up and he could keep the money.

The reason I mentioned it was an indication of how costs & expenses can quite easily grow to be many times the original amount claimed - so quite a "big deal" really.

Judges are not entertaining claims which are brought about without any foundation, and as you say, even where there might be some foundation, awarding costs to the otherwise 'losing' party because of the manner in which they have been raised. Not many cases in the whole scheme of things, true, but a few years back I didn't see any at all doing this. But judges have never been particularly sympathetic when they see unreasonable behaviour by one side and by awarding costs to the losing party it means the claimant often ends walking away out of pocket & owing money.

Going to court should always be the last resort. There are now a number of other ways of sorting out complaints, disputes and legal problems without court action, including arbitration, mediation and ombudsmen schemes These are often called alternative dispute resolution (ADR) schemes.

Court rules require you to think about whether alternative dispute resolution is a better way to reach an agreement before going to court.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/infoabout/claims/index.htm

Court rules require you to think about whether alternative dispute resolution is a better way to reach an agreement before going to court. If you refuse to consider this, you may not get your costs back, or the court may order you to pay the other party’s costs, even if you win the case.

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/courtfinder/forms/ex301.pdf Page 1

Premier_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

..."huge fees" is a bit of an exaggeration, though. OH did some small claims cases as a pupil, for £150 a go, as I recall.

That's extremely cheap. I would think barristers would charge at least £150 per hour, some much, much more. That may not apply to a barrister in training though.

As well as obviously attending court, they would need to spend some time preparing the case unless it was so simple in which case why would a barrister even be involved. Barristers are employed by solicitors - if a member of public didn't want to handle the case in person, the solicitor would normally attend rather than employ the expertise of a barrister.

Solicitors or barristers costs are not allowed in a small claims court - it's designed for representation in person.

The barristers I've seen are usually when someone files a claim against a large firm. The large corprations don't seem to care about costs or the type of court it is - they just send in their own barrister (who incidently doesn't get much sympathy from the judge in a county court because of the clear unfairness to the other side)

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

That's extremely cheap. I would think barristers would charge at least £150 per hour, some much, much more. That may not apply to a barrister in training though.

As well as obviously attending court, they would need to spend some time preparing the case unless it was so simple in which case why would a barrister even be involved. Barristers are employed by solicitors - if a member of public didn't want to handle the case in person, the solicitor would normally attend rather than employ the expertise of a barrister.

I think you have an inflated idea of barristers' charges!

The worst paid I ever have been was in a Crown Court mention - standard £46 fee, no travel costs, and I was there from 9.30am to 6pm, plus 3 hours' travelling time. That sucked.

A standard fee in immigration law for a barrister of my sort of call is £350 for a straight-forward case, incl. prep, etc.

Premier_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

...The worst paid I ever have been was in a Crown Court mention - standard £46 fee, no travel costs, and I was there from 9.30am to 6pm, plus 3 hours' travelling time. That sucked...

Sorry, but which firm of barristers will charge £46 for that?
I'll use them in all my claims - it's less than the maximum £50 per day loss of earnings I can lawfully claim against the lose so we'll both win. (and that's before I add the travelling expenses which itself could easily amount to a couple of hundred quid for me)

Even in legal aid schemes, the prices for barristers in 2005 was £33.50 for a junior, £47 for a leading junior and £62.50 for a QC. ... and that's per hour!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4611239.stm

I can assure you these are far less than the rates barristers usually charge on a private basis. As I said, £150 per hour is extremely cheap.

"the finest commercial barristers from Gray's Inn and Lincoln's Inn - men whose hourly rates can reach £1,000." http://www.davidrowan.com/2002/03/evening-standard-thyssen-family-feud.html

Athough, admitedly, that is high.

neverdespairgirl

Premier wrote: »

Sorry, but which firm of barristers will charge £46 for that?
I'll use them in all my claims - it's less than the maximum £50 per day loss of earnings I can lawfully claim against the lose so we'll both win. (and that's before I add the travelling expenses which itself could easily amount to a couple of hundred quid for me)

Even in legal aid schemes, the prices for barristers in 2005 was £33.50 for a junior, £47 for a leading junior and £62.50 for a QC. ... and that's per hour!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4611239.stm

I can assure you some these are far less than the rates barristers charge on a private basis. As I said, £150 per hour is extremely cheap.

We aren't firms - we are self-employed, in Chambers.

But £46 is the standard mention fee, for legal aid. No arguing, no negotiating, it's fixed fee.

The legal aid rates to whcih you refer are only for those (few) cases outside the graduated fees system. Almost all Crown Court cases are in the grad fee system, and rates for everything are set. Not hourly rates either.

Grad fee came in 1994-ish, and rates haven't gone up since. Crime doesn't pay!

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/781.htm

tbs624

HGLTsuperstar wrote: »

..... giving it until the end of today then ringing around the different TDS schemes and will update on Monday.

Thanks for updating, HGLT - you never know, you may just get home to a cheque through the letterbox......

Premier_2

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

We aren't firms - we are self-employed, in Chambers.

But £46 is the standard mention fee, for legal aid. No arguing, no negotiating, it's fixed fee.

The legal aid rates to whcih you refer are only for those (few) cases outside the graduated fees system. Almost all Crown Court cases are in the grad fee system, and rates for everything are set. Not hourly rates either.

Grad fee came in 1994-ish, and rates haven't gone up since. Crime doesn't pay!

http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/781.htm

I'm sorry, but are you seriously trying to tell us that barristers earn about £10k per annum out of which they have to pay their own NI and other costs a self employed person has to pay? (not to mention their costs of travelling to & from court)?
And that's only if they are in court 5 days a week?

Pull the other one :rotfl:
A full time burger flipper in Maccy-Ds earns more than that!