Indigo Cardiff Nurses Case: Permission to Appeal Refused

Umkomaas

Phew - just ploughed through both documents. Seems much of the problem on the ‘unreasonableness’ front in the case lay not directly with the defendants themselves.

Worth a (long) read to have the complete picture.

Coupon-mad

The nurses did nothing to deserve those costs.

Everyone read the judgments? Can you all see what it is yet? Don't assume you know.

Loadsofchildren123

I haven't seen the documents, are they public?

bargepole

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I haven't seen the documents, are they public?

Linked in post #1 of this thread.

safarmuk

I haven't seen the documents, are they public?

LOC123, the second link from Bargepole (all 81 pages of it) details the costs order discussion. That one makes interesting reading.

Ryandavis1959

Thanks for the update, I am happy for my donation to go towards another worthy cause.

Looks like a lot of people are sniping at the Lay Rep, but let’s not forget that he is on our side and is not the true enemy.

Coupon-mad

Ryandavis1959 wrote: »

... but let’s not forget a pile of tosh from someone who either has no idea, or too much of an idea...

Quelle surprise...corrected the above.

Coupon-mad

Loadsofchildren123 wrote: »

I haven't seen the documents, are they public?

Yes. The links are to long documents, but the regulars here need to read them.

Cygnus_Alpha

Bargepole. Thank you for posting the transcripts. It has taken me 3 days of free time to read them.

The most amusing bit was in the costs hearing when the Claimants barrister claimed to have had 2 hour meetings with the solicitor at the end of each day and Beavis said "I thought you went to see Coldplay".

If I was to take the positives from this, I think I am now better equipped to argue for costs based on unreasonable behaviour.

With hindsight it does appear to me to be foolhardy to argue on signage if the signage was adequate and on POFA compliance if they had complied.

It is always difficult if witnesses mislead the court but then the defence did have sight of the written statements and could have prepared a cross examination which would have cast doubt upon the witnesses evidence.

I speak as someone who has had no legal training but who beat Parking Eye's barrister that you really need to prepare properly. That said the Claimant's barrister in this case was at least a couple of notches higher than the one I had to deal with.

Umkomaas

That said the Claimant's barrister in this case was at least a couple of notches higher than the one I had to deal with.

Paradoxically, Ryan Hocking, the barrister, acted (pro bono) for Barry Beavis in the ParkingEye Supreme Court case.

Having previously bumped my gums about ‘hypocrisy’, I’m reliably informed that barristers take cases on a ‘taxi rank’ basis, so no criticism his way - a very professional performance from him.

Small world.