Yet more Tory sleaze….

[Bromptonaut]

Is there a reason why the GLP would not seek a costs cap? If eligible, what is the downside?

I suspect that an application for a costs cap will incur its own cost as it will need to be argued. Thus, if the costs look manageable, there's no need to apply.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/2/section/88/enacted

 

[Ian H]

The idea that money always wins would seem to indicate a broken legal system.

 

[mudsticks]

The idea that money always wins would seem to indicate a broken legal system.

Thankfully it doesn't always, but it can give a huge and unjust advantage.

And of course is a massive confidence giver.

Thankfully there are still good lawyers who will do low or no fee work.

Doubtless these would be considered 'loonie leftie' lawyers by some.

 

[Pale Rider]

View attachment 306

View attachment 306

Interesting to see how many members think two wrongs make a right, or rather, Claud's sneering is fine on the moronic basic they agree with her target of the day.

Every comment is an insult or a sneer at who you think is less intelligent than you. Then, if someone fires back, you clutch your pearls in fake horror and complain that you’ve been insulted

Utter crap.

You have no grasp of facts, do you?

And all because you disagree with my views.

Is there a reason why the GLP would not seek a costs cap? If eligible, what is the downside?

No one on here fully understands the pre-estimate of costs in High Court civil cases, including me.

But it does appear the Good Law Project was out thought by the other side.

What is clear is the other side won that tactical battle.

Posters on here can - and will - call the government all the names they like, but so far their lawyers have been sharper than the Good Law Project's.

The project's backers would be better advised to examine how, and on whom, the project spent their money.

 

[Pale Rider]

The idea that money always wins would seem to indicate a broken legal system.

Money well spent wins.

You could spend roughly the same on two lawyers, one razor sharp who would likely win, and one not so clever who would likely lose.

Choosing the correct lawyer for job is all part of the tactical battle.

 

[Ian H]

Money well spent wins.

You could spend roughly the same on two lawyers, one razor sharp who would likely win, and one not so clever who would likely lose.

Choosing the correct lawyer for job is all part of the tactical battle.

Which is why we need a fit-for-purpose legal aid system.

 

[Pale Rider]

Which is why we need a fit-for-purpose legal aid system.

The Legal Aid system can only dispense money, it cannot dispense tactical nous.

Horses for courses.

Most of the lawyers I see charge roughly the same, but I know some are better at prosecuting, some are better at defending.

Some are better at fighting a case at trial, some are better at mitigating a guilty plea.

Some are better at filth cases, some are better at complicated frauds, and so on.

Choosing the right man or woman for the job is the first step in any successful legal action.

 

[Ian H]

The Legal Aid system can only dispense money, it cannot dispense tactical nous.

Horses for courses.

Most of the lawyers I see charge roughly the same, but I know some are better at prosecuting, some are better at defending.

Some are better at fighting a case at trial, some are better at mitigating a guilty plea.

Some are better at filth cases, some are better at complicated frauds, and so on.

Choosing the right man or woman for the job is the first step in any successful legal action.

If you can afford it. There many examples not just of money winning cases, but also of money deterring folk from instigating or challenging cases.

 

[Rusty Nails]

What is clear is the other side won that tactical battle.

Posters on here can - and will - call the government all the names they like, but so far their lawyers have been sharper than the Good Law Project's.

Yes that is clear. It is the tactics.....of the government........not some grubby commercial organisation.

It is not at all that the government lawyers have been "sharper", that would have been demonstrated by winning the court case, but they have access to almost limitless funds which, we all pay for, and which they can seemingly misuse to bully and overpower small organisations which have the effrontery to go against them.

I would prefer my government to win any legal dispute with their citizens in a way whereby justice can be seen to be done.

YMMV.

 

[Pale Rider]

It is not at all that the government lawyers have been "sharper",

It is in that early skirmish.

As I said, part of the trick is to prevent the case from going to a full hearing because juries - and High Court judges in this case - have an annoying habit of finding against you.

If you can afford it. There many examples not just of money winning cases, but also of money deterring folk from instigating or challenging cases.

Money was not a problem in deciding whether there would be a costs cap.

I don't doubt the Good Law Project had/has skilled representation, but no lawyer can win every battle.

Does anyone know if the project is still pressing ahead with the case?

 

[Rusty Nails]

It is in that early skirmish.

As I said, part of the trick is to prevent the case from going to a full hearing because juries - and High Court judges in this case - have an annoying habit of finding against you.

I don't want my government..whether Tory, Labour or coalition...resorting to tricks when in a legal dispute with its own citizens. I want a fair hearing to come to a fair conclusion...which can be used to set the correct precedent.

With all due respect, and using that old cliché, your argument is that of someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

 

[BoldonLad]

By PLC I imagine that you are talking about companies. In these circumstances, money definitely talks. I remember a CEO once giving a speech saying he would defend patents aggressively through the courts unless it was ******* (biggest company in the sector at the time). They could have 'em as their pockets were so deep!

With government, I think it needs to be different, and think that many politicians believe this as well. Courts need to be able to test the legality of their actions and this is often brought by much smaller groups or charities etc. It is one of the checks in our democracy. The stakes are much higher for society than company litigation. The cost cap is designed to level this playing field. I guess my confusion is why the GLP wouldn't want to cap costs wherever possible. I guess there are downsides of which I am unaware.

If the government are doing this deliberately to the GLP it isn't because the GLP are taking the government to court. It is because they have been winning...

I am not supporting "The Government", what I am say is that it is the Legal Representatives, not "The Government" who will be deciding the tactics. Be honest, would you let any of the incompetents in Government near any legal case you hoped to win?

 

[Pale Rider]

I don't want my government..whether Tory, Labour or coalition...resorting to tricks when in a legal dispute with its own citizens. I want a fair hearing to come to a fair conclusion...which can be used to set the correct precedent.

With all due respect, and using that old cliché, your argument is that of someone who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.

I am being realistic.

Anyone, in this case a government, accused of doing something wrong will want to defend themselves or admit it.

The government has chosen to defend its position.

The system for doing that is adversarial - it's a battle.

I don't criticise the Good Law Project for having a go, but they must realise the other side will respond.

There's no problem provided both sides play be the rules, which has happened so far.

 

[icowden]

The system for doing that is adversarial - it's a battle.
I don't criticise the Good Law Project for having a go, but they must realise the other side will respond.
There's no problem provided both sides play be the rules, which has happened so far.

I actually agree with you on this. I think part of the problem is that the GLP are probably using barristers who have a sense of procedural morality whilst the government would not in the slightest care about *how* the barrister wins their case as long as they win. This tends to put the more moral of the two parties at a disadvantage.

 

[Rusty Nails]

I am not supporting "The Government", what I am say is that it is the Legal Representatives, not "The Government" who will be deciding the tactics. Be honest, would you let any of the incompetents in Government near any legal case you hoped to win?

I am not sure that is the case. The legal representatives will be discussing and recommending the tactics and can be over-ridden by the client..the government..who do actually have some legal professionals in their number, and have ministers/ politicians such as Attorney General and Justice Secretary who are responsible for legal matters. Although that is quite worrying when you look at the likes of recent incumbents such as Raab and Truss.