Taking dishonest driver to SCC regarding accident!

Car_54

casseus wrote: »

Quite right SCC judge, he'll/she'll proportion blame on both parties and use case law ruling and balance of probabilities and then split blame 50/50 or 20/80 and so on, unless you car 54 ofcourse and all words used in the court room must have a legal definition and status or we must argue over the word to be used with the judge. My god cant even believe he considered that angle to win an dispute.

If this ever gets to court, which I doubt, it will probably involve the insurers and in a more formal forum than the SCC. There will be barristers involved on both sides. When it comes to pedantry, I’m not in the same league as these guys.

Car_54

casseus wrote: »

Could been ex officer before being kicked out for being too semantic and then became a driving instructor.


Truth is we can be what we want to be on the internet.

Indeed. I was a High Court judge, but couldn’t stand the pedantry so I gave it up to be an instructor.

casseus

Car_54 wrote: »

If this ever gets to court, which I doubt, it will probably involve the insurers and in a more formal forum than the SCC. There will be barristers involved on both sides. When it comes to pedantry, I’m not in the same league as these guys.

Oh god its gone from the judge to the barristers now. :rotfl: MORE FORMAL FORUM? a SCC is the forum they don't move it magistrates court because some barristers have got involved. :rotfl:

Stop talking fantasies.

Do you want a shovel to go with that hole?

Car_54

casseus wrote: »

Oh god its gone from the judge to the barristers now. :rotfl: MORE FORMAL FORUM? a SCC is the forum they don't move it magistrates court because some barristers have got involved. :rotfl:

Stop talking fantasies.

Do you want a shovel to go with that hole?

If the insurers think it’s worth employing lawyers and going to court, which - as I’ve said - I doubt, then it won’t be in the SCC. There’s a £10k limit.

casseus

Car_54 wrote: »

If the insurers think it’s worth employing lawyers and going to court, which - as I’ve said - I doubt, then it won’t be in the SCC. There’s a £10k limit.

So the amount of the OP's claim is going to be more than 10k because of the other sides barristers fee's now?:rotfl:

You do know its based on the AMOUNT of plaintiffs claim on his/her part which is a deciding factor of where the claim goes in the SCC track now don't you and not whether its going to cost £100.000 to defend it:rotfl:

You do know the insurers mostly send a lawyer to these things down you? And the costs must be reasonable, if the fees are out proportion to the claim there will be a fees hearing to settle it but mostly they are kept within the SCC Track.

Any way its irrelevant to the topic you do know that Right of way isn't going to be an issue of topic or discussion in legal realms don't you, its merely what they call LAYMANS TERMS in courts. The SCC will issue it to county court level after 10k and that's why its called the small claims track!

Do you need a ladder and rope down there in that big hole?