Losing no win, no fee & having to pay

Pollycat

KatrinaWaves said:

eddddy said:

The scandalous thing  about this is that the 'no win, no fee' companies often encourage people to lie and exaggerate claims, suggesting that it's almost a way of getting 'free money'. And then, when it all goes wrong, they use the lies and exaggeration as an excuse not to pay their costs.

Whilst I do agree these companies are 'scandalous' I have zero sympathy with people who choose to lie to extort money form someone else, regardless of whether they were encouraged to do so by an unscrupulous firm.

+1 to this.

Lots of people jumped on the compensation bandwagon claiming illness on holiday.

The holiday companies hit back and took the liars to court.

mattyprice4004

Unfortunately your MIL must have fabricated something - and having been found out, she will be liable for the costs of the other side defending the claim (and rightly so). 

No win no fee refers to the costs of her solicitors, not the other side - and I'm sure there'll be a clause in the T&Cs that if a claim is false the dishonest party must pick up the tab and the no win, no fee part goes out the window.  

The rule of court tends to be tell porkies, get the book thrown at you - fundamental dishonesty isn't something that's decided lightly. I'd say it's time for MIL to stop pointing the finger elsewhere, and find the £13k. 

born_again

Did she read the T/C when signing up? What does it say in there about any potential costs when losing?

neilmcl

Lukegarner said:

My mother in law was contacted by a no win, no fee place following a bump.  It went to court yesterday and she lost the case with the judge citing fundamental dishonesty.  The result is a £13k bill and her solicitor saying they're not liable for the costs. 

This surely cant be correct considering it was no win no fee?

It's a common misunderstanding. No win, no fee means exactly that, you lose you don't have to pay your solicitor's fee, it doesn't mean you don't have to pay court or the other party's costs. I'm surprised your mum wasn't offered insurance to cover this.

KatrinaWaves

neilmcl said:

Lukegarner said:

My mother in law was contacted by a no win, no fee place following a bump.  It went to court yesterday and she lost the case with the judge citing fundamental dishonesty.  The result is a £13k bill and her solicitor saying they're not liable for the costs. 

This surely cant be correct considering it was no win no fee?

It's a common misunderstanding. No win, no fee means exactly that, you lose you don't have to pay your solicitor's fee, it doesn't mean you don't have to pay court or the other party's costs. I'm surprised your mum wasn't offered insurance to cover this.

Doubt OP will be back tbh but I have a feeling if the MIL was quite happy to commit 'fundamental dishonesty' in either the filings our the actual day in court, I doubt shes the most diligent reader of T&C's, especially when those £ signs get in the way of your vision.

steampowered

There is a massive difference between the judge ruling in favour of the defendant, and that judge ruling that someone is a liar. 

The standard "no win no fee" agreement with your solicitor does say that you will be liable to pay costs if your claim is fraudulent.

"After The Event" insurance, which would have been taken out to cover the other side's costs, doesn't cover you if your claim proves to be fraudulent.

I am afraid if it can be proved that your mother in law lied, she will be liable for both sets of costs. However proving that someone lied is incredibly difficult.

peachyprice

steampowered said:

I am afraid if it can be proved that your mother in law lied, she will be liable for both sets of costs. However proving that someone lied is incredibly difficult.

Not really.  For example, if the MIL said she had severe whiplash meaning she couldn't leave the house for 6 weeks and the other party saw her down the pub and took photos it would be incredibly easy to prove she lied. 

Pollycat

peachyprice said:

steampowered said:

I am afraid if it can be proved that your mother in law lied, she will be liable for both sets of costs. However proving that someone lied is incredibly difficult.

Not really.  For example, if the MIL said she had severe whiplash meaning she couldn't leave the house for 6 weeks and the other party saw her down the pub and took photos it would be incredibly easy to prove she lied. 

It wouldn't surprise me if that's what has happened here.

Perhaps the OP could come back and give more information on the 'fundamental dishonesty' comment from the judge.

I really can't see this woman getting out of paying the £13k bill.

I'd guess the NWNF company have covered themselves on this.

born_again

The NW NO FEE will be their charge. NOT anything other party maybe charging.