Gobsmacked by RCVS reply

Nicki

You are welcome hatchette.

Forget all the rhetoric about juries and prejudicial pre-trial publicity and lawyers researching you uphill and down dale as in reality that's an episode of The Good Wife not what's going to happen in England.

As others have said to you, there is no ability in UK law to claim for your animals pain and suffering, nor for your own emotional distress. The only things you can claim for will be the monetary value of your dog and the amount you paid in vets fees for the last illness. I imagine this will be less than £10,000 in which case you will have to bring your action in the small claims court.

Just to let you know what would happen then, in case it makes a difference to whether you think this is worth pursuing. You would file your case alleging negligence and putting a financial figure on what your dog was worth to buy and how much your fees were. The vet (or their insurers) could then bring the whole thing to an immediate end by paying what you asked for. Or they could admit negligence but dispute the figure in which case the only evidence you would be allowed to produce would be your vets bills and evidence about the sale value of dogs like yours. If they denied negligence, the court would order you both to exchange your evidence (ie written witness statements and your experts reports) and to file them with the court. Then there would probably be a short informal hearing (not in a court room usually but a small side room) with the judge who would ask you both questions about your evidence. You wouldn't be allowed to cross examine the vet however and ask her questions, this would be for the judge to do, nor would you usually be allowed to bring your expert along to give evidence. So even in the best case scenario, you wouldn't get publicity for the case, you would not get the judge to say the vet should be struck off, and at best you would only recover a small amount of damages which would be eaten up by legal fees if you chose to use a solicitor (because each side bears their own legal costs in small claims under £5000).

I think it would be painful, stressful and not achieve any of the outcomes you would like. But if you would like any more info about the process I am happy to answer questions. This link might be thought provoking reading

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/factsheets/thompsons-small-claims-court-consumer-problem-factsheet.pdf

yorkshire_terrier_owner

Nicki wrote: »

:eek: Do you really teach law :eek::eek: in the UK?

Negligence cases aren't heard by juries in the UK. My point was that posting detailed information in the public domain was not a good idea if legal action is planned.

I think you have been watching too many US dramas. Is that really necessary?

Negligence cases are heard by judge alone and have been since well before I did my law degree in the 1980s! I am still a practising lawyer and the right to a jury trial for civil cases of any kind has been almost entirely eroded. Even defamation cases which were the last bastion from January this year will usually be heard by a judge without a jury. But they still could be, theoretically.

Also civil proceedings don't become active until a date has been set for trial, so this isn't sub judice for contempt purposes as the OP hasn't even issued a claim form and judges aren't as easily swayed as all that. It wasn't me that posted that.

Finally, if you have a good cause of action your motive for bringing legal proceedings is irrelevant, much less a reason to have the action struck out. My point was that the motive for bringing action could bring a halt to the case - I didn't say 'struck out'. That could because it may be difficult to find representation to take the case on.

Personally, having read this thread I don't think the OP would be well served by bringing proceedings and that it won't give her the remedies she wants so we agree here, which is the basis of everything me and many others here have already said

but giving legal advice which is 100% wrong in content what specifically is wrong in content? Are you claiming all information in have posted here is incorrect? Sweeping statements here are not helpful

in an attempt to bully the OP I have at no point attempted to bully the OP. I have at all times tried to keep my posts helpful, constructive and without harshness. The OP has made comments to me that have been otherwise. When that happens, I reserve the right to defend myself.

is unforgivable if you are genuinely a legal professional I am an educational professional. I believe in treating other professionals with the respect they deserve. Part of that is not deliberately trying to embarrass other professionals in a public forum. l

and I am horrified that this is also what you might be teaching a whole new generation of students! I work with practising barristers and examination boards to ensure the course content taught to my students is legally correct

ETA just a link to back this up, as this thread demonstrates anyone can claim to have legal expertise and training. However, this is the law database of Pinsent Mason a leading city law firm, and if you look under the section headed "Trial" you will see that Yorkshire terrier has vastly misstated the law in her posts on this thread I recently used the services of this particular firm where some of my students participated in an online webinar. I am not in the business of defaming companies, but I will say I would not use their services for this purpose again. I also encourage students to look closely at the source of information and use information written by legal academics when they are researching legal concepts.

http://www.out-law.com/en/topics/dispute-resolution-and-litigation/court-procedure/an-overview-of-civil-proceedings-in-england-and-wales/

I have posted on the forums on this website for quite some time, and found your post to be quite aggressive and argumentative. I have at all times aimed to be supportive of posters. I have defended my position, and will not enter into an argument about it. To that end, I shall not look at or read this thread again as I think it better to ignore attempts to belittle. I bow out with dignity.

Nicki

For the avoidance of doubt Yorkshire terrier, yes I am saying that each and every legal assertion you made in the post I quoted was legally incorrect, hence why I am astounded that you claim to teach tort.

Someone's motive for bringing a legal action, provided it is legal as OP's is, does not impact on their ability to find representation any more than it does on the judge's ability to strike out their claim.

My post is neither aggressive nor argumentative, it is simply stating clearly what the actual law is because it is dangerous in the extreme to post such poor advice online under the banner of a "legal background" and brings the whole profession into disrepute.

To remind you, you said to the OP that in 10 minutes googling you had found 2 "defences" to her claim. The first was that her prejudicial posting would prejudice a jury hearing her case. A jury would never have been going to hear her case because juries haven't heard negligence cases for nearly 50 years. A judge isn't going to be prejudiced, and even if he were because the publicity is before the proceedings are active, there would be nothing he could do to dismiss the case even if he remembered it 9 months down the line provided OP deleted the threads once a court date was set. You secondly said that her improper motive would bring the case to an immediate end. Even if what you meant was as you now say that she wouldn't find a lawyer willing to act, leaving aside that this is nonsense, there is no requirement to be legally represented in any civil case and in fact the majority of litigants in the small claims court appear in person.

yorkshire_terrier_owner

Nicki wrote: »

For the avoidance of doubt Yorkshire terrier, yes I am saying that each and every legal assertion you made in the post I quoted was legally incorrect, hence why I am astounded that you claim to teach tort.

Someone's motive for bringing a legal action, provided it is legal as OP's is, does not impact on their ability to find representation any more than it does on the judge's ability to strike out their claim.

My post is neither aggressive nor argumentative, it is simply stating clearly what the actual law is because it is dangerous in the extreme to post such poor advice online under the banner of a "legal background" and brings the whole profession into disrepute.

To remind you, you said to the OP that in 10 minutes googling you had found 2 "defences" to her claim. The first was that her prejudicial posting would prejudice a jury hearing her case. A jury would never have been going to hear her case because juries haven't heard negligence cases for nearly 50 years. A judge isn't going to be prejudiced, and even if he were because the publicity is before the proceedings are active, there would be nothing he could do to dismiss the case even if he remembered it 9 months down the line provided OP deleted the threads once a court date was set. You secondly said that her improper motive would bring the case to an immediate end. Even if what you meant was as you now say that she wouldn't find a lawyer willing to act, leaving aside that this is nonsense, there is no requirement to be legally represented in any civil case and in fact the majority of litigants in the small claims court appear in person.

You have misunderstood and misquoted several points I have made.

I repeat:
I will not enter into argument. As soon as I have pressed the submit button here, I will be logging off and not returning to this thread.

Nicki

yorkshire_terrier_owner wrote: »

Sigh.

A very quick search on Google gave me the following links to your posts on here, but also duplicate posts on 2 other forums:

http://mysmelly.com/Archive/NegligentCausedDogsDeath/cmqqg/post.htm
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4828494
http://community.preloved.co.uk/forums/discussion/96017?startrow=1#983536

Now bearing in mind I have already said I have a legal background, if I was the defence in this case, within 1 minute I have my defence - I would argue firstly that the case would be difficult to hear in court because you have posted in the public domain and included facts that easily identify the case. Therefore, any (unlikely) hearing before a jury could would be prejudicial. Secondly, I would argue that you have launched an online attack on the vet and RCVS and I would have enough evidence to prove that your motive for bringing a case is questionable.

Those 2 things alone would be enough to put a halt to your case.

I'm absolutely sure that If I spent the next few hours going through all your posts, I would have several other arguments up my sleeve. However, it is late. I am going to go and let my pack out and head off the land of nod.

Good night.

Just quoting it in its entirety then, as I can't see where I've misquoted or misunderstood any of the advice you gave.

As for the crack at Pinsent Masons, both Chambers and the Legal 500 put this firm in the top tier of law firms in the UK (as judged by their peers) so I suspect they can weather the disdain of an educational professional . I have no connection with them now or in the past, but I respect their reputation for offering high calibre advice.

Money-Saving-King

Nicki wrote: »

The only things you can claim for will be the monetary value of your dog and the amount you paid in vets fees for the last illness. I imagine this will be less than £10,000 in which case you will have to bring your action in the small claims court.

The surgery practice insurers made Hachette an offer of £2162.78 to which Hachette rejected.

The costs you list were: £412.70 for Vets surgery, £650 original purchase price of Maxie 8 years ago (I don't know whether this is the monetary now as Hachette had owned Maxie for 8 years).

Nicki

Money-Saving-King wrote: »

The surgery practice insurers made Hachette an offer of £2162.78 to which Hachette rejected.

The costs you list were: £412.70 for Vets surgery, £650 original purchase price of the dog 8 years ago (I don't know whether this is the monetary now as Hachette had owned the dog for 8 years).

In that case, a small claims action is most likely to go one of the first two ways I suggested. Either they'll immediately pay what is asked for, or they will admit liability offer £2000 ish and just have a hearing about how much they should pay.

Either way hachette none of the background to what happened to your dog will be aired in court proceedings. Even if you put it in your claim form, you won't be allowed to adduce your experts report at all because liability won't be in issue, the judge won't ask anyone any questions about what happened and it would be a quick in and out where the judge looks at your vets bill receipt and some ads for dogs of the same age and breed, comes up with a number which may be less than the vet has already offered and sends you both on your way. It's actually possible for cases like this to be done on the papers submitted so you might not even get a day in court to face the vet or her insurers.

Is that what you envisaged from the process, and would it help in any way to give you closure if that's how things played out?

I should say that I am very sympathetic to your distress, but this thread got quite bent out of shape with some very dodgy advice being given in amongst all the insults, so I wanted to give you the respect of telling you honestly and straightforwardly how things will work legally so that you can take an informed decision as to whether this is what you want.

Haffiana

The bullying of the OP in this thread is disgraceful. The OP does not agree with the 'advice' given by posters and this seems to give them the excuse to start abusing the OP. Lying in order to support that bullying is outrageous.

lostinrates

I don't know the legal arguments, I might well ask my husband later, I won't be reporting back what he tells me if I do because its just another anonymous persons opinion and w on"t actually help op nor readers like me, with no legal training, determine true from false.

. But I agree, op is suffering some abuse. I did not think yto was one of those.

I feel op is vulnerable and that whatever one thinks about how she is acting and expressing herself its not on to attack people in extremis.

People are using words like 'crazy' then going on to attack. Now, if people ACTUALLY feel op has mental health issues I ask is it acceptable in today's world to treat people one feels are suffering so in such a way? ( this is not a reference btw to op or her state of mind, but rather about people who are attacking In such terms). It is, thankfully, perfectly acceptable to disagree, in steadfast terms in places like this, and I think its probably helpful for op to hear that.

I maintain my stance however, op , that I hope you find peace with this, the issue over the stolen dog and the organisations involved. I sincerely wish you good luck.

goonarmy

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't know the legal arguments, I might well ask my husband later, I won't be reporting back what he tells me if I do because its just another anonymous persons opinion and w on"t actually help op nor readers like me, with no legal training, determine true from false.

. But I agree, op is suffering some abuse. I did not think yto was one of those.

I feel op is vulnerable and that whatever one thinks about how she is acting and expressing herself its not on to attack people in extremis.

People are using words like 'crazy' then going on to attack. Now, if people ACTUALLY feel op has mental health issues I ask is it acceptable in today's world to treat people one feels are suffering so in such a way? ( this is not a reference btw to op or her state of mind, but rather about people who are attacking In such terms). It is, thankfully, perfectly acceptable to disagree, in steadfast terms in places like this, and I think its probably helpful for op to hear that.

I maintain my stance however, op , that I hope you find peace with this, the issue over the stolen dog and the organisations involved. I sincerely wish you good luck.

Stolen dog?