Litigation Risk: Parking space and £76,000

Legacy_user

A frequent subject is the risk of going to court and losing. But there is also a risk associated with winning too. Solicitors are obliged to advise their clients of the risk so that they do not throw good money after bad. Sometimes we are remiss in advising posters of the risk.

It's a bit OTT for a parking space, but there is a point here

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/motors/2018/09/17/pensioners-11-year-row-over-parking-space-costs-them-more-than-120000/

Tribunal judge William Hansen found in favour of Soden, who was awarded a 76cm-wide section of the [parking] space – with the Timminses also ordered to remove the fence. The argument cost Soden, who lives in Cookham, £76,000 in legal fees, with the Timminses required to pay £27,000 of his costs on top of their own £45,000 fee.

The_Deep

But this is not about PPCs, this is about land. Some people become very precious about their land boundaries, to them it is a matter of principal, cost does not enter into it.

[Deleted User]

My tuppence worth....

The individuals in that case would have been advised early on that the costs were likely to escalate and bear no relationship to the issues in dispute. Boundary disputes are notorious to have such crazy outcomes (not forgetting you still need to live next door to them). The classic maxim follows in a conversation like so:

"But it's the principle..."
"Principles cost money"

It has been suggested that the win ratio on this forum is 90% or so. It may be, but I have concerns with giving any number (and don't) for the following reasons.

1. Confirmation bias - outcomes of successful hearings are more likely reported than unsuccessful

2. Experience - once at a hearing you aren't in control. Frankly, anything can happen. In most litigation you aim for settlement to avoid exactly this risk.

3. There is no proper way to audit forum users (or visitors) and outcomes other than their reports. Some may lie or provide half-truths.

I regularly refer to litigation risk - the inherent uncertainty of the process (sometimes referred to as DJ Bingo on this forum) is exactly an expression of these points.

For some people - because of the burden of time and potential costs exposure it could well be the correct course for them (even if it pains me to say it) simply to pay. However chances are, if you're looking here you've got some willing to fight - and many cases do indeed win - just go in to that fight 'eyes open'

System

But this is not about PPCs, this is about land.

PPC's manage land. Landowners/occupiers are very precious about who comes onto their land and remain. It's also about risk but as small claims costs are limited then there is damage limitation.

But it pays to remind OP's that the advice they get here has a risk attached to it.

bargepole

I'd like to know what kind of car you can park on a 76cm wide (about 2 feet 6 inches in old money) strip of land.

But as Johnersh says, the sols should have given them explicit warnings about the likely escalation of costs, and on the figures given, it seems likely that counsel were instructed.

The other unanswered question, is why the losing party weren't ordered to pay the full legal costs of the successful claimant.

[Deleted User]

I'd like to know what kind of car you can park on a 76cm wide (about 2 feet 6 inches in old money) strip of land.

That's the part of the land in dispute. The car was backed up over this section of path/land.

The other unanswered question, is why the losing party weren't ordered to pay the full legal costs of the successful claimant.

You rarely get your full costs. They are always subject to assement by the court. Although 40% recovery does seem low

bargepole

The full Judgment of the First Tier Lands Tribunal is here: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWLandRA/2018/2017_0077.pdf

It says at the end that costs will be summarily assessed separately, following submissions on costs by the parties. I believe in a case like this, the sols should provide a costs estimate prior to final hearing, and if the costs claimed are somewhere near that figure, they are usually awarded. Perhaps they tried to be too ambitious.

B789

...there is no real sense of victory and the only people who have really won out of all this are the expensive lawyers.

T'was ever so... :doh:

Coupon-mad

How on earth did Mr Soden even have that much in his own costs?

They'd used that gate and right of way since the mid 80s so didn't he have an easement by prescription - game over?

My naive non-legal head, tells me this was more simple than the solicitors made it...?

peter_the_piper

If I remember correctly the parking bay they had was extra wide anyway so they could easily have parked sufficiently out of the way to enable passage through the gate. Presumably the 76cm in the OP was to the side of the bay which was extra wide anyway. A lot of fuss about absolutely nothing.