"Esure vs me" court date

waamo

Why did you get stuck with the barristers fee when you won?

dacouch

They're recoverable in some circumstances eg the OP's whre the judge appears to have decided the actual court hearing was avoidable as the amount the Insurers paid prior to the hearing was sufficient to settle the claim.

The amount of costs recoverable are set very low to avoid people such as the OP being put off going to court by the possibility of a large legal bill from the other party

maddogb

waamo wrote: »

Why did you get stuck with the barristers fee when you won?

Their barrister argued the claim for punitive damages was separate to the main case which they would have simply responded with a letter stating the claim had been paid hence as the judge rejected the claim for p/damages it was in his opinion unreasonable, the judge did not put up more than token resistance to this idea which whilst disappointing was not my main problem at the time and my head was swimming to much to put up a fight.

maddogb

So in full summary for those with an interest in law the only reason expressed by the judge as to why she felt punitive damages were not appropriate is because as far as she was aware they are not available in breeches of contract
This is likely based on a case
Addis v Gramophone Co Ltd [1909] AC 488


now since then there have been many cases skirting on this issue the most famous being.


Rookes v Barnard [1964] 1 All ER 367 at 410, [1964] AC 1129


here in the house of lords Lord Develin basically rewrote the rules in his speech laying down several categories where punitive damages were appropriate.
The second category (wrongful conduct expected to yield a benefit in excess of any compensatory award likely to be made). was most likely to succeed IMHO
The above argument against was then countered by several pieces of precedent including


1. assessed by the House of Lords in Kuddus v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Constabulary(2001), the cause of action test has been clearly rejected.(cause of action corresponded with the claims for which exemplary damages had been awarded before 1964)


2. The law commission report(1997) recommending limitation of "breech of contract" exclusion was rejected in it's entirety.


3.subtle but, also this claim is about the breech of statute leading to breech in contract, not other way round had the contract been tight, had they followed statute there would be no case.


4. Jarvis v Swan’s Tours Ltd (1973) QB 233 Facts : Plaintiff booked winter sports holiday with Defendants in Switzerland. By the 2 nd week, the Plaintiff was the only one left on the tour because of the blatant let down in the tour promises. Held : The English Court of Appeal held that Jarvis was entitled to damages comprising the cost and the disappointment he suffered. CA (Lord Denning MR) stated that the notion that damages for mental distress in disappointment situations were not recoverable was outdated. Recovery should be allowed as it was in tort. HL held that the rule in Addis v Gramophone (1909) is still good law, but upheld Lord Denning’s exception where the purpose or predominant object of the contract was the provision of some mental satisfaction


5. Sprung Vs Royal insurance sets precedent that payouts are secondary (damages) therefore the punitive damages were not for breech of contract as it is considered the contract is to be held harmless.


I had been holding on for the written court decision to confirm this but will get it out there now in case there may be anyone in the same situation as the hassle I had getting these damages added to the claim meant a very hard battle which could probably have been avoided had I thought to include it in the original claim.

andrewn_2

I still don't get it, you were after extra money over the $4600 you wanted but were going to give it to charity? lol wahts the point of that.

ManuelG

andrewn wrote: »

I still don't get it, you were after extra money over the $4600 you wanted but were going to give it to charity? lol wahts the point of that.

Principle.

maddogb

andrewn wrote: »

I still don't get it, you were after extra money over the $4600 you wanted but were going to give it to charity? lol wahts the point of that.

esure broke the law and needed punished for it, I am of the opinion that no one else will do it and this law had been in place since 1999, a company that is worth that much money does not beak the law accidentally they knew and they should be punished for it.
There may be other insurers doing it but I could prove Esure did it.

k3lvc

I'm missing something here - how exactly were they 'punished' and what out of this case will ensure they don't do it again ?

Can't imagine they'll be quaking in their boots and suddenly changing their processes (and if they do change it'll only come with increased premiums)

arcon5

andrewn wrote: »

so if you won do they get a ccj against them.

Ccjs are only permanently recorded if unpaid after 30 days

maddogb

k3lvc wrote: »

I'm missing something here - how exactly were they 'punished' and what out of this case will ensure they don't do it again ?

Can't imagine they'll be quaking in their boots and suddenly changing their processes (and if they do change it'll only come with increased premiums)

Yes you are missing something, its called previous posts lol
They didn't get punished this time and I doubt they will mend their ways because of that
And the fact of increased premiums is going to happen anyway get used to it.