Equine Vet Dispute - Advice welcome

A_Geordie

The first thing to understand is that in the eyes of the law, animals are treated as property, in as much the same way as a mobile phone or a car. This means that this is treated as a contractual relationship and the general principals of contract law apply rather than a personal injury claim. 

This area of law is pretty niche and I'm afraid I am not familiar with it but in circumstances like this, I would expect there to be experts instructed to determine the cause and extent of the damage/negligence caused by the practice. Highly recommend looking at whether legal expenses insurance is covered and try to go through the legal route that way, if it is worth pursuing (or defending if the practice issues a claim).

That all said, I would agree with the rest of the posters that if you feel they are to blame, then you may be better off denying liability and putting the ball back in their court to see what they do. Should you receive a letter before claim, then that's your opportunity to rebut and also outline any potential counterclaim which may give them cause to think if this is worth pursuing. Since the value of the claim is under £10k and the type of dispute this relates to, I would imagine they will need to rely on lawyers to argue their case, which is costs they won't get back under the small claims track and may very well exceed the amount being claimed.

Until the court has determined liability to the debt, it's a speculative invoice at best and you are free to ignore it.

DullGreyGuy

A_Geordie said:
Until the court has determined liability to the debt, it's a speculative invoice at best and you are free to ignore it.

Its a disputed invoice not a speculative one, it would be exceptionally unlikely that there is no contract for the initial treatment and that contract will include having to deal with emergencies that may occur without prior explicit authorisation

A_Geordie

DullGreyGuy said:

A_Geordie said:
Until the court has determined liability to the debt, it's a speculative invoice at best and you are free to ignore it.

Its a disputed invoice not a speculative one, it would be exceptionally unlikely that there is no contract for the initial treatment and that contract will include having to deal with emergencies that may occur without prior explicit authorisation

Unless the OP has accepted liability for the debt or a court determines the debt is owed, the OP is not liable. Calling it speculative or disputed is neither here nor there the point remains that the OP doesn't believe she owes that amount being claimed.

DullGreyGuy

A_Geordie said:

DullGreyGuy said:

A_Geordie said:
Until the court has determined liability to the debt, it's a speculative invoice at best and you are free to ignore it.

Its a disputed invoice not a speculative one, it would be exceptionally unlikely that there is no contract for the initial treatment and that contract will include having to deal with emergencies that may occur without prior explicit authorisation

Unless the OP has accepted liability for the debt or a court determines the debt is owed, the OP is not liable. Calling it speculative or disputed is neither here nor there the point remains that the OP doesn't believe she owes that amount being claimed.

Speak to any IP lawyer, a speculative invoice is a particular thing. 

A_Geordie

DullGreyGuy said:

Speak to any IP lawyer, a speculative invoice is a particular thing. 

Quite right and harps back to the days of the Goldeneye case, but the phrase is not confined to just IP law. The word speculative can be used in numerous contexts which ultimately leads to the same thing like the OP's matter but if you want the win and for me to accept I should have said disputed invoice instead of speculative invoice, I'm happy to give you it