I'm sure you're all familiar with my case by now from the previous 195-
post subject.

The matter seems to have been passed up the chain in the solicitor's
firm. Unfortunately arguments are no more coherent or convincing now
than previously.

I received what is apparently a very menacing letter on the 10th,
warning me of potential liability for £15,000 costs, and making all
kinds of malicious allegations as to my conduct and intentions.
Incidentally, such conduct and intentions on my part, when viewed
objectively, demonstrates utmost good faith.

First they "consider it appropriate" for me to refer to the CPR,
"which can be accessed online". My rejoinder was to suggest that
*they* consult the CPR, for they clearly have not done so.

Then I am faced with the rather bizarre warning that they intend to
call one of their own solicitors, to testify as to *my* opinions -
unfortunately they did not properly scrutinise what I had previously
written, and had assumed I was stating fact rather than (a fair)
opinion. I was of the view that solicitors tend to carefully choose
their own words, and carefully scrutinise the words of others - not so
with this firm: their own arguments are slapdash, and they read
alternative meanings into the plain words of others.

They go on to refer to my "obviously unsustainable case", but then
inform me that the Judge at the previous CMC (I wasn't in attendance)
was of the view that the matter involves "complex issues" and should
be allocated to the Multi track. Clearly the Judge doesn't consider
anything to be so "obvious", and has perhaps given the case proper
scrutiny which the Defendant has not.

But wait, there's more. They also state their intention to apply for a
Security for Costs Order in the value of £15,000. Scary, you might
think, until you consider the pre-requisites contained in the CPR. In
particular, their reasons are that I am no longer resident in the UK;
that I have changed my address since my claim commenced "with a view
to avoiding the consequences of litigation"(!); and that I have failed
to state my correct address on the claim form.

My response, of course, was to point out (in accordance with the CPR)
that Cyprus is a "Regulation State", to ask what their evidence was
that my staying in Cyprus was in any way connected with this
litigation (let alone for the purposes of "evading consequences"), and
to clarify that the address given on the Claim Form was correct at the
time of filing and that I can still be contacted at that address. For
good measure I explained briefly why it would not be "just" to make
such an order in any case.

Of course, the top hat on all this waffling was an offer to allow me
to discontinue my claim, with no liability for costs. Dear me.

Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
the case proceeds.

Ste  wrote:

> I'm sure you're all familiar with my case by now from the previous 195-
> post subject.
.....
> Of course, the top hat on all this waffling was an offer to allow me
> to discontinue my claim, with no liability for costs. Dear me.

Well, obviously they dont want to go through with the case, and are
subtley 'warning' you that you could be liable for their costs.
I'd guess that they are bluffing.
 
> Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
> the case proceeds.

Please do.

Alan.
-- 
To reply by e-mail, change the ' + ' to 'plus'.

On 13 Sep, 11:10, a...@darkroom.+.com (A.Lee) wrote:
> Ste  wrote:
> > I'm sure you're all familiar with my case by now from the previous 195-
> > post subject.
> .....
> > Of course, the top hat on all this waffling was an offer to allow me
> > to discontinue my claim, with no liability for costs. Dear me.
>
> Well, obviously they dont want to go through with the case, and are
> subtley 'warning' you that you could be liable for their costs.
> I'd guess that they are bluffing.

I honestly don't think they want this matter tried. However rather
than nipping it in the bud early, they appear to be betting the farm
on this case. They're playing it tough, but that merely aggravates my
righteous indignation.

I'm confident their bluff will be spectacularly called when their
Defence is dragged over hot coals in court. Frankly, once the case is
over and it has cost them tens of thousands of pounds to defend an
indefensible case, I can see members of Asda's in-house legal team
having their careers dragged over hot coals too.

Ste wrote:
> I'm sure you're all familiar with my case by now from the previous
> 195- post subject.
>
> The matter seems to have been passed up the chain in the solicitor's
> firm. Unfortunately arguments are no more coherent or convincing now
> than previously.

Up the chain? You mean, to a more senior solicitor or to a partner? 
Presumably one who can put together a more belligerent letter.

>
> I received what is apparently a very menacing letter on the 10th,
> warning me of potential liability for £15,000 costs, and making all
> kinds of malicious allegations as to my conduct and intentions.
> Incidentally, such conduct and intentions on my part, when viewed
> objectively, demonstrates utmost good faith.
>
> First they "consider it appropriate" for me to refer to the CPR,
> "which can be accessed online". My rejoinder was to suggest that
> *they* consult the CPR, for they clearly have not done so.

I may have missed something. What does their Defence actually say? What do 
they believe to be their killer argument?

>
> Then I am faced with the rather bizarre warning that they intend to
> call one of their own solicitors, to testify as to *my* opinions -

That is indeed bizarre. At most he could testify as to the content of 
telephone or face to face conversations, to explain what was said.


> unfortunately they did not properly scrutinise what I had previously
> written, and had assumed I was stating fact rather than (a fair)
> opinion. I was of the view that solicitors tend to carefully choose
> their own words, and carefully scrutinise the words of others - not so
> with this firm: their own arguments are slapdash, and they read
> alternative meanings into the plain words of others.
>
> They go on to refer to my "obviously unsustainable case", but then
> inform me that the Judge at the previous CMC (I wasn't in attendance)
> was of the view that the matter involves "complex issues" and should
> be allocated to the Multi track.

In other words, by going to the multi-track they can get huge sums of costs 
if they win. I suppose it is probably in your interests to press for the 
Small Claims Track, even if you are sure you will win.

>Clearly the Judge doesn't consider
> anything to be so "obvious", and has perhaps given the case proper
> scrutiny which the Defendant has not.
>
> But wait, there's more. They also state their intention to apply for a
> Security for Costs Order in the value of £15,000. Scary, you might
> think, until you consider the pre-requisites contained in the CPR. In
> particular, their reasons are that I am no longer resident in the UK;
> that I have changed my address since my claim commenced "with a view
> to avoiding the consequences of litigation"(!); and that I have failed
> to state my correct address on the claim form.
>
> My response, of course, was to point out (in accordance with the CPR)
> that Cyprus is a "Regulation State", to ask what their evidence was
> that my staying in Cyprus was in any way connected with this
> litigation (let alone for the purposes of "evading consequences"), and
> to clarify that the address given on the Claim Form was correct at the
> time of filing and that I can still be contacted at that address. For
> good measure I explained briefly why it would not be "just" to make
> such an order in any case.

Is your main residence in the UK?

>
> Of course, the top hat on all this waffling was an offer to allow me
> to discontinue my claim, with no liability for costs. Dear me.
>
> Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
> the case proceeds.

Thanks. This is certainly a very interesting case, and I feel sure that if 
they can't get an order for security for costs they will have to think 
seriously about settling.

On 13 Sep, 14:00, "The Todal"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > I'm sure you're all familiar with my case by now from the previous
> > 195- post subject.
>
> > The matter seems to have been passed up the chain in the solicitor's
> > firm. Unfortunately arguments are no more coherent or convincing now
> > than previously.
>
> Up the chain? You mean, to a more senior solicitor or to a partner?
> Presumably one who can put together a more belligerent letter.

Apparently so. It's the most belligerent yet, but the least internally-
coherent. The whole letter is packed with boilerplate worst-case
scenarios. However they begin by cocksurely referring to "when
something bad happens", then towards the end referring to the same
outcomes as conditional: "if something bad happens".

Then there is the self-defeating rhetoric, which describes the case as
'open and shut' in their favour, but then they inform me (as a lead in
to their costs warning) that the Judge considers the matter so complex
and important that he is allocating it to the Multi track!

Not to mention, as to Cyprus, the obviously unfounded allegations of
'fleeing the consequences of litigation'. And the fact that a proper
reading of the Rules precludes any such Security for Costs order -
hence my referring them to the Rules.


> > I received what is apparently a very menacing letter on the 10th,
> > warning me of potential liability for £15,000 costs, and making all
> > kinds of malicious allegations as to my conduct and intentions.
> > Incidentally, such conduct and intentions on my part, when viewed
> > objectively, demonstrates utmost good faith.
>
> > First they "consider it appropriate" for me to refer to the CPR,
> > "which can be accessed online". My rejoinder was to suggest that
> > *they* consult the CPR, for they clearly have not done so.
>
> I may have missed something. What does their Defence actually say? What do
> they believe to be their killer argument?

They have many killer arguments - unfortunately they kill their case
not mine. Ultimately their defence rests on a denial that there was
any arrest, or in the alternative, that any arrest that did occur was
lawful.

Their actual defence quotes a power under PACE s.24A that does not
exist for a person other than a constable - namely, the power to
arrest where the arrestor has RGtS that an offence *has been*
committed and RGtS that the person to be arrested is guilty of it. But
that is a mere procedural matter - the Defence can be corrected (with
costs implications), and it is clear what power they really intend to
claim: that under 24A(1)(b).

Obviously it is for the judge to decide the points (previously
discussed at length here) of whether the suspected offence was
continuing, and if so whether there were reasonable grounds for
suspicion. Those points are likely to be of greatest concern for the
Defendant, for it determines the fundamental right to arrest on the
grounds of an alarm sounding. These are the points on which I'd desire
some sort of declaratory relief.

However, provided I can show there was indeed an arrest, the arrest
can be proved unlawful simply by virtue of PACE s.28 - arrestee was
not notified of the arrest, or of the grounds for it.


> > Then I am faced with the rather bizarre warning that they intend to
> > call one of their own solicitors, to testify as to *my* opinions -
>
> That is indeed bizarre. At most he could testify as to the content of
> telephone or face to face conversations, to explain what was said.

I merely told them that, if the notes taken by the solicitor were
accurate, they would concur with my recollection of what was said.

Basically, their defence partly consists of denying that there was any
arrest - then the solicitor asks me on the phone "then why did you not
show your receipt, for if you had you would have been free to go" -
clearly there is an arrest implied here.

It may have been entirely hypothetical, said for the purposes of
provocative argument, but I responded in a later email by saying to
the solicitor "it seemed you did not consider the Defence to be very
likely" - and as well as you can judge someone from their words, tone,
etc., the solicitor genuinely seemed to me to be unconvinced as to the
truth of the defence.

Anyway they've jumped on this, calling the statement 'knowingly
inaccurate and untrue' and demanded an apology and a retraction -
which apology, if given, would probably be used to discredit me at a
later date. Of course, I had to explain to them the difference between
stating a fact, and stating a fair opinion, and point out my careful
choice of words. My elephantine memory certainly helps in these
situations, for I did not record the call in any way.


> > unfortunately they did not properly scrutinise what I had previously
> > written, and had assumed I was stating fact rather than (a fair)
> > opinion. I was of the view that solicitors tend to carefully choose
> > their own words, and carefully scrutinise the words of others - not so
> > with this firm: their own arguments are slapdash, and they read
> > alternative meanings into the plain words of others.
>
> > They go on to refer to my "obviously unsustainable case", but then
> > inform me that the Judge at the previous CMC (I wasn't in attendance)
> > was of the view that the matter involves "complex issues" and should
> > be allocated to the Multi track.
>
> In other words, by going to the multi-track they can get huge sums of costs
> if they win. I suppose it is probably in your interests to press for the
> Small Claims Track, even if you are sure you will win.

No, in fact I'm quite happy for it to be allocated to the Multi track,
for it means costs are recoverable.

Both parties stated on their AQ that the Small Claims track would be
preferred - and I stated this because the SCT simply seemed to be the
normal track. However the Judge of his own initiative seemed to think
not the SCT, not the Fast track, but the Multi track would be most
appropriate!


> >Clearly the Judge doesn't consider
> > anything to be so "obvious", and has perhaps given the case proper
> > scrutiny which the Defendant has not.
>
> > But wait, there's more. They also state their intention to apply for a
> > Security for Costs Order in the value of £15,000. Scary, you might
> > think, until you consider the pre-requisites contained in the CPR. In
> > particular, their reasons are that I am no longer resident in the UK;
> > that I have changed my address since my claim commenced "with a view
> > to avoiding the consequences of litigation"(!); and that I have failed
> > to state my correct address on the claim form.
>
> > My response, of course, was to point out (in accordance with the CPR)
> > that Cyprus is a "Regulation State", to ask what their evidence was
> > that my staying in Cyprus was in any way connected with this
> > litigation (let alone for the purposes of "evading consequences"), and
> > to clarify that the address given on the Claim Form was correct at the
> > time of filing and that I can still be contacted at that address. For
> > good measure I explained briefly why it would not be "just" to make
> > such an order in any case.
>
> Is your main residence in the UK?

I would say so, yes. The vast majority of my possessions remain there,
though I've been staying in Cyprus since April. I intend to return
home at the end of this month anyway.


> > Of course, the top hat on all this waffling was an offer to allow me
> > to discontinue my claim, with no liability for costs. Dear me.
>
> > Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
> > the case proceeds.
>
> Thanks. This is certainly a very interesting case, and I feel sure that if
> they can't get an order for security for costs they will have to think
> seriously about settling.

It's inconceivable that they'll get such an Order - because there's
simply no grounds for making one.

The problem as to settling, is frankly I'm becoming more and more
determined to have the matter heard in court, as I certainly want to
know where I stand in future, and it's also a public interest issue.

Incidentally, is anyone here familiar with the rules concerning
settlement? Can a person insist on an admission of liability, or must
you take any reasonable offer without liability admitted? What about
confidentiality clauses?

Note that I expect to recover less than £1000 general damages at any
trial, but I would only be inclined to settle without an admission of
liability if they offered many thousands of pounds, such that the huge
sum offered would necessarily cast doubt on any technical denial of
liability.

The Todal wrote:
> Ste wrote:

>> Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
>> the case proceeds.
>
> Thanks. This is certainly a very interesting case, and I feel sure
> that if they can't get an order for security for costs they will have
> to think seriously about settling.

Good luck, Ste - it's pretty shabby to try and bully you out of having it 
heard by a court, and I hope the judge will recognise this and hold it in 
the small claims track

Ste wrote:

>> In other words, by going to the multi-track they can get huge sums
>> of costs if they win. I suppose it is probably in your interests to
>> press for the Small Claims Track, even if you are sure you will win.
>
> No, in fact I'm quite happy for it to be allocated to the Multi track,
> for it means costs are recoverable.

You don't have much in the way of costs to recover. In fact multi-track 
tilts things significantly in Asda's favour. You might care to look at the 
possible outcomes:

A) You win: Asda pays you possibly £2k in compensation. They have some 
costs, but hey that's what their legal dept is for. Nobody gets the chop, 
nobody says sorry, and Asda doesn't even notice the money.

B) You lose: You have to pay Asda's costs, and I bet these are at least 
£15k.

In odds terms, you need to be 80%-90% certain of winning. You also need to 
consider whether losing £15k is going to be simply too risky for you. In 
your position, not being made of such stern stuff as you, I would be very, 
very tempted to throw in my cards or negotiate a settlement now. As part of 
the negotiation tactics, I would prepare a draft press release about this 
(rather interesting!) case. I would then send this to Asda 'to give them a 
chance to correct any factual inaccuracies'.

GB wrote:
> Ste wrote:
>
>>> In other words, by going to the multi-track they can get huge sums
>>> of costs if they win. I suppose it is probably in your interests to
>>> press for the Small Claims Track, even if you are sure you will win.
>>
>> No, in fact I'm quite happy for it to be allocated to the Multi
>> track, for it means costs are recoverable.
>
> You don't have much in the way of costs to recover. In fact
> multi-track tilts things significantly in Asda's favour.

I agree - if it stays Small Claims they'll still have to send their 
expensive corporate lawyers, so the impact of a change to multi-track is 
largely upon you.

I'd suggest you argue that you are a private citizen pressing a simple, 
relatively small case.  If the defendants are allowed to escalate it into a 
more costly arena, this will have the effect of denying you justice.    I'd 
be surprised and concerned if a county court judge allowed big corp's to 
subvert the Small Claims system like this.    IANAL however, so my opinion 
is worth diddly-squat.

Ste wrote:
> On 13 Sep, 14:00, "The Todal"  wrote:
>> Ste wrote:
>>> I'm sure you're all familiar with my case by now from the previous
>>> 195- post subject.
>>
>>> The matter seems to have been passed up the chain in the solicitor's
>>> firm. Unfortunately arguments are no more coherent or convincing now
>>> than previously.
>>
>> Up the chain? You mean, to a more senior solicitor or to a partner?
>> Presumably one who can put together a more belligerent letter.
>
> Apparently so. It's the most belligerent yet, but the least
> internally- coherent. The whole letter is packed with boilerplate
> worst-case
> scenarios. However they begin by cocksurely referring to "when
> something bad happens", then towards the end referring to the same
> outcomes as conditional: "if something bad happens".
>
> Then there is the self-defeating rhetoric, which describes the case as
> 'open and shut' in their favour, but then they inform me (as a lead in
> to their costs warning) that the Judge considers the matter so complex
> and important that he is allocating it to the Multi track!

You said there is a CMC coming up. That would be another opportunity to 
allocate the case to a different track, and I think small claims track would 
be preferable in order to ensure a level playing field. You are a litigant 
in person, and they presumably intend to use an experienced barrister. Of 
course, in the small claims track they can use their experienced barrister 
too, but at least they can't make you pay his fees if you lose.

>>> Then I am faced with the rather bizarre warning that they intend to
>>> call one of their own solicitors, to testify as to *my* opinions -
>>
>> That is indeed bizarre. At most he could testify as to the content of
>> telephone or face to face conversations, to explain what was said.
>
> I merely told them that, if the notes taken by the solicitor were
> accurate, they would concur with my recollection of what was said.
>
> Basically, their defence partly consists of denying that there was any
> arrest - then the solicitor asks me on the phone "then why did you not
> show your receipt, for if you had you would have been free to go" -
> clearly there is an arrest implied here.

I agree. The solicitor sounds rather stupid - but that's not unusual. Let's 
hope the judge is reasonably bright.

>
> It may have been entirely hypothetical, said for the purposes of
> provocative argument, but I responded in a later email by saying to
> the solicitor "it seemed you did not consider the Defence to be very
> likely" - and as well as you can judge someone from their words, tone,
> etc., the solicitor genuinely seemed to me to be unconvinced as to the
> truth of the defence.
>
> Anyway they've jumped on this, calling the statement 'knowingly
> inaccurate and untrue' and demanded an apology and a retraction -

If a solicitor demands an apology and retraction because of something you've 
said to *the solicitor*, I would always refuse to apologise or retract, on 
principle. Indeed, over the years I have had many such letters and each time 
I have treated them with the contempt they deserve.  They are indicative of 
a naive and inexperienced lawyer.


>
> The problem as to settling, is frankly I'm becoming more and more
> determined to have the matter heard in court, as I certainly want to
> know where I stand in future, and it's also a public interest issue.

I agree. Also, it sounds like the sort of thing that might interest the 
newspapers.

>
> Incidentally, is anyone here familiar with the rules concerning
> settlement? Can a person insist on an admission of liability, or must
> you take any reasonable offer without liability admitted? What about
> confidentiality clauses?

If they make you a reasonable financial offer and refuse to admit liability, 
you could be in trouble (costs-wise) if you refuse the offer merely because 
they won't admit liability.  In a case of this sort, I wouldn't expect them 
to admit liability and I wouldn't expect them to apologise. In short, a 
financial offer is the most you can expect.

They can't insist on a confidentiality clause. If you are willing to agree 
to one, make them pay you more compensation as an incentive to accept such a 
clause.

>
> Note that I expect to recover less than £1000 general damages at any
> trial, but I would only be inclined to settle without an admission of
> liability if they offered many thousands of pounds, such that the huge
> sum offered would necessarily cast doubt on any technical denial of
> liability.

I don't know all the details (the amount of humiliation, the length of the 
detention) but it is unlikely that the value of your claim would exceed 
about 1k and it could be less.

On 13 Sep, 23:55, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> The Todal wrote:
> > Ste wrote:
> >> Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
> >> the case proceeds.
>
> > Thanks. This is certainly a very interesting case, and I feel sure
> > that if they can't get an order for security for costs they will have
> > to think seriously about settling.
>
> Good luck, Ste - it's pretty shabby to try and bully you out of having it
> heard by a court, and I hope the judge will recognise this and hold it in
> the small claims track

On the contrary! I would prefer it to be allocated to the Multi track,
for the court will take the resolution of issues more seriously, and
costs can be awarded against the losing party.

"The Todal"  wrote in message 
news:6j2vrmF17m1mU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ste wrote:
>> On 13 Sep, 14:00, "The Todal"  wrote:
>>> Ste wrote:
>>
>> Then there is the self-defeating rhetoric, which describes the case as
>> 'open and shut' in their favour, but then they inform me (as a lead in
>> to their costs warning) that the Judge considers the matter so complex
>> and important that he is allocating it to the Multi track!
>
> You said there is a CMC coming up. That would be another opportunity to
> allocate the case to a different track, and I think small claims track 
> would
> be preferable in order to ensure a level playing field. You are a litigant
> in person, and they presumably intend to use an experienced barrister. Of
> course, in the small claims track they can use their experienced barrister
> too, but at least they can't make you pay his fees if you lose.
>

If there is a point of law to be argued would any judge agree to the small 
claims track?  I would have thought the outcome would be fast track at the 
minimum where costs are at least limited.  Or am I just out of date?

On 13 Sep, 18:25, "GB"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> >> In other words, by going to the multi-track they can get huge sums
> >> of costs if they win. I suppose it is probably in your interests to
> >> press for the Small Claims Track, even if you are sure you will win.
>
> > No, in fact I'm quite happy for it to be allocated to the Multi track,
> > for it means costs are recoverable.
>
> You don't have much in the way of costs to recover. In fact multi-track
> tilts things significantly in Asda's favour. You might care to look at the
> possible outcomes:

My final costs bill will almost certainly exceed any award of general
damages. Disbursments are already in the hundreds of pounds. As for
time and effort, well, to date I would speculate that I have spent a
few hundred hours dealing with the case. Obviously the court is not
going to award costs for all those hours, but they will for a very
significant proportion of them.


> A) You win: Asda pays you possibly £2k in compensation. They have some
> costs, but hey that's what their legal dept is for. Nobody gets the chop,
> nobody says sorry, and Asda doesn't even notice the money.

Haha. If I win, it would be a monumental loss for Asda because of the
wider issues. As I've said, Asda's position in this case is analogous
to that of the banks and the question of fair bank charges; it's not
the cost of conceding one case that they are worried about, it is the
cost of conceding all such cases or having a precedent set.


> B) You lose: You have to pay Asda's costs, and I bet these are at least
> £15k.

There was no compliance with the pre-action protocol (necessitating
the issue of the claim), they have failed to share relevant
information early in litigation, and they have failed to give a
detailed and coherent defence. For as long as their behaviour
continues to be unreasonable, there is little prospect that a costs
order will be made in their favour even in the event they win.

And there is little chance that their behaviour will improve, because
by hook or by crook they do not want the matter tried in court.


> In odds terms, you need to be 80%-90% certain of winning.

I am confident of winning on the question of law. The real obstacle
are the questions of fact, and it remains my word against the security
guard's. Obviously I can't be totally sure that a court will believe
me, or that Asda won't just find other people willing to lie about
what happened, but I'm certainly not going to roll over because the
consequences may be great if I do not convince a court that I am
telling the truth.


> You also need to
> consider whether losing £15k is going to be simply too risky for you.

No it isn't, and I want satisfaction. Obviously I don't want to lose
£15k, but the chance of being liable for that sum seems like a small
possibility, and any risk I'm quite willing to take.


> In
> your position, not being made of such stern stuff as you, I would be very> very tempted to throw in my cards or negotiate a settlement now.

I have not really broached the subject because it's not about money,
and it's perfectly clear how they stand on the issues. Ironically,
hearing that I am willing to go where others fear to tread increases
my confidence, because it proves there is an economic justification
for the way they are playing this game (and I've hinted to them that I
understand this).

Indeed all their efforts at leveraging fear would be more suited to an
idiot who doesn't know the law, or is unsure. But the fact will not be
lost on them that, 99 times out of 100, LIPs are indeed idiots who
don't know the law, and that people with genuine grievances normally
instruct a solicitor.

As I said, playing the game as they are is going to be a disastrous
misjudgment for them, because their behaviour is not in fact
ratcheting up the fear factor, instead it's ratcheting up the anger
factor.


> As part of
> the negotiation tactics, I would prepare a draft press release about this
> (rather interesting!) case. I would then send this to Asda 'to give them a
> chance to correct any factual inaccuracies'.

As you can probably tell, I'm a principled man. Such negotiation
tactics strike me as less than decent, and in fact it mirrors the very
conduct of Asda.

But don't worry, I fully intend to give publicity to this case when it
is over.

On 14 Sep, 00:05, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
> GB wrote:
> > Ste wrote:
>
> >>> In other words, by going to the multi-track they can get huge sums
> >>> of costs if they win. I suppose it is probably in your interests to
> >>> press for the Small Claims Track, even if you are sure you will win.
>
> >> No, in fact I'm quite happy for it to be allocated to the Multi
> >> track, for it means costs are recoverable.
>
> > You don't have much in the way of costs to recover. In fact
> > multi-track tilts things significantly in Asda's favour.
>
> I agree - if it stays Small Claims they'll still have to send their
> expensive corporate lawyers, so the impact of a change to multi-track is
> largely upon you.

Not when you factor in *my* costs, which are not altogether small.


> I'd suggest you argue that you are a private citizen pressing a simple,
> relatively small case.  If the defendants are allowed to escalate it into a
> more costly arena, this will have the effect of denying you justice.    I'd
> be surprised and concerned if a county court judge allowed big corp's to
> subvert the Small Claims system like this.    IANAL however, so my opinion
> is worth diddly-squat.

The truth is, according to their AQ they want it on the SCT, and I
also thought the matter was appropriate for the SCT and so filled in
my AQ in accordingly. It is the Judge, at a CMC that I did not attend,
who has decided this matter is of sufficient complexity to warrant a
full trial. I'm quite happy for it to go down that road.

Incidentally, it might be nice to have one of those court-room
sketches to put on the wall!

On 14 Sep, 02:20, "The Todal"  wrote:
> Ste wrote:
> > On 13 Sep, 14:00, "The Todal"  wrote:
> >> Ste wrote:
> >>> I'm sure you're all familiar with my case by now from the previous
> >>> 195- post subject.
>
> >>> The matter seems to have been passed up the chain in the solicitor's
> >>> firm. Unfortunately arguments are no more coherent or convincing now
> >>> than previously.
>
> >> Up the chain? You mean, to a more senior solicitor or to a partner?
> >> Presumably one who can put together a more belligerent letter.
>
> > Apparently so. It's the most belligerent yet, but the least
> > internally- coherent. The whole letter is packed with boilerplate
> > worst-case
> > scenarios. However they begin by cocksurely referring to "when
> > something bad happens", then towards the end referring to the same
> > outcomes as conditional: "if something bad happens".
>
> > Then there is the self-defeating rhetoric, which describes the case as
> > 'open and shut' in their favour, but then they inform me (as a lead in
> > to their costs warning) that the Judge considers the matter so complex
> > and important that he is allocating it to the Multi track!
>
> You said there is a CMC coming up. That would be another opportunity to
> allocate the case to a different track, and I think small claims track would
> be preferable in order to ensure a level playing field. You are a litigant
> in person, and they presumably intend to use an experienced barrister. Of
> course, in the small claims track they can use their experienced barrister
> too, but at least they can't make you pay his fees if you lose.

I'm more concerned to have my costs covered in the event of a win,
than the remote prospect of covering their costs in the event of a
loss.


> >>> Then I am faced with the rather bizarre warning that they intend to
> >>> call one of their own solicitors, to testify as to *my* opinions -
>
> >> That is indeed bizarre. At most he could testify as to the content of
> >> telephone or face to face conversations, to explain what was said.
>
> > I merely told them that, if the notes taken by the solicitor were
> > accurate, they would concur with my recollection of what was said.
>
> > Basically, their defence partly consists of denying that there was any
> > arrest - then the solicitor asks me on the phone "then why did you not
> > show your receipt, for if you had you would have been free to go" -
> > clearly there is an arrest implied here.
>
> I agree. The solicitor sounds rather stupid - but that's not unusual. Let's
> hope the judge is reasonably bright.

In general judges are. Based on the standard of pleadings so far, Asda
will need to dig up Johnnie Cochran in order to win this case.


> > It may have been entirely hypothetical, said for the purposes of
> > provocative argument, but I responded in a later email by saying to
> > the solicitor "it seemed you did not consider the Defence to be very
> > likely" - and as well as you can judge someone from their words, tone,
> > etc., the solicitor genuinely seemed to me to be unconvinced as to the
> > truth of the defence.
>
> > Anyway they've jumped on this, calling the statement 'knowingly
> > inaccurate and untrue' and demanded an apology and a retraction -
>
> If a solicitor demands an apology and retraction because of something you've
> said to *the solicitor*, I would always refuse to apologise or retract, on
> principle. Indeed, over the years I have had many such letters and each time
> I have treated them with the contempt they deserve.  They are indicative of
> a naive and inexperienced lawyer.

The solicitor assigned the case is recently qualified, though I'm not
so sure it was an uncalculated act by an inexperienced solicitor. Of
course, standards of good behaviour dictate that someone should be
careful to establish what they are offering as fact, is fact.
Notwithstanding this case, I attach intrinsic value to my reputation
for honesty and the accuracy of my statements.

And in a case such as this resting so heavily on credibility, it is
important not only that I act correctly, but that I am seen to be
acting correctly. To have accepted their complaint and to have
apologised would either imply my recollection was faulty, or that I
was simply telling lies. I don't know whether such correspondence
would be admissible, but the case would turn on it if they were ever
able to show either of those things were true.


> > The problem as to settling, is frankly I'm becoming more and more
> > determined to have the matter heard in court, as I certainly want to
> > know where I stand in future, and it's also a public interest issue.
>
> I agree. Also, it sounds like the sort of thing that might interest the
> newspapers.

It certainly should be.


> > Incidentally, is anyone here familiar with the rules concerning
> > settlement? Can a person insist on an admission of liability, or must
> > you take any reasonable offer without liability admitted? What about
> > confidentiality clauses?
>
> If they make you a reasonable financial offer and refuse to admit liability,
> you could be in trouble (costs-wise) if you refuse the offer merely because
> they won't admit liability.  In a case of this sort, I wouldn't expect them
> to admit liability and I wouldn't expect them to apologise. In short, a
> financial offer is the most you can expect.

I couldn't care less for an apology now. But surely there is an
important issue to be tried, which is likely to arise again in the
future. Even where they want to settle, but refuse to concede points
of law, is it reasonable behaviour to insist that the matter be tried
and the law declared?


> They can't insist on a confidentiality clause. If you are willing to agree
> to one, make them pay you more compensation as an incentive to accept such a
> clause.

I would probably require tens of thousands of pounds before I would
agree to any confidentiality.


> > Note that I expect to recover less than £1000 general damages at any
> > trial, but I would only be inclined to settle without an admission of
> > liability if they offered many thousands of pounds, such that the huge
> > sum offered would necessarily cast doubt on any technical denial of
> > liability.
>
> I don't know all the details (the amount of humiliation, the length of the
> detention) but it is unlikely that the value of your claim would exceed
> about 1k and it could be less.

It was run of the mill. Alarm went off, guard used nominal physical
force to detain me, I rang the police. Starting point for general
damages is probably £250.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 14:55:17 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On 13 Sep, 23:55, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>> The Todal wrote:
>> > Ste wrote:
>> >> Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
>> >> the case proceeds.
>>
>> > Thanks. This is certainly a very interesting case, and I feel sure
>> > that if they can't get an order for security for costs they will have
>> > to think seriously about settling.
>>
>> Good luck, Ste - it's pretty shabby to try and bully you out of having it
>> heard by a court, and I hope the judge will recognise this and hold it in
>> the small claims track
>
>On the contrary! I would prefer it to be allocated to the Multi track,
>for the court will take the resolution of issues more seriously,

That's simply not true.

> and
>costs can be awarded against the losing party.

Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.
If you win, then neither small claims nor multi track will be
significantly different as far as you're concerned as you won't have
much in the way of costs to claim. If you lose, then small claims will
result in a relatively minor imposition, while multi track could be
extremely expensive for you.

Asda's reasons for wanting it in multi-track are that they think they
will win, but they expect winning to be expensive and they want to
recover as much of that cost as possible from you when they do win. 

If i was suing them then I'd want it kept in the small claims, so that
even if they win the case, it will cost them more to defend than they
will recover in costs. That would provide them with an incentive to
settle out of court in my favour even if they think they've got a good
case, as it would be the most cost-effective course of action.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 16:05:06 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On 14 Sep, 00:05, "Steve Walker"  wrote:
>> GB wrote:
>> > Ste wrote:
>>
>> >>> In other words, by going to the multi-track they can get huge sums
>> >>> of costs if they win. I suppose it is probably in your interests to
>> >>> press for the Small Claims Track, even if you are sure you will win.
>>
>> >> No, in fact I'm quite happy for it to be allocated to the Multi
>> >> track, for it means costs are recoverable.
>>
>> > You don't have much in the way of costs to recover. In fact
>> > multi-track tilts things significantly in Asda's favour.
>>
>> I agree - if it stays Small Claims they'll still have to send their
>> expensive corporate lawyers, so the impact of a change to multi-track is
>> largely upon you.
>
>Not when you factor in *my* costs, which are not altogether small.

What are your costs? I thought you were representing yourself?

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

> Haha. If I win, it would be a monumental loss for Asda because of the
> wider issues. As I've said, Asda's position in this case is analogous
> to that of the banks and the question of fair bank charges; it's not
> the cost of conceding one case that they are worried about, it is the
> cost of conceding all such cases or having a precedent set.
>
There won't be a meaningful precedent set by a case in the County Court. 
Even if it goes to trial, hardly anyone will get to hear about it, and it 
certainly will not get into the Law Reports as a precedent.

>> You also need to
>> consider whether losing £15k is going to be simply too risky for you.
>
> No it isn't, and I want satisfaction. Obviously I don't want to lose
> £15k, but the chance of being liable for that sum seems like a small
> possibility, and any risk I'm quite willing to take.
>
Fair enough, that's your call.

>> In
>> your position, not being made of such stern stuff as you, I would be
>> very, very tempted to throw in my cards or negotiate a settlement
>> now.
>
> I have not really broached the subject because it's not about money

I'm afraid litigation is always about money. Contrary to popular belief, 
there is no great condemnation of the losing party, or upholding of a lofty 
principle, or even much publicity. The defendant can and will stop a case 
going to trial by making an offer to settle before trial. If you don't 
accept an offer and you get awarded less at trial, you pay all the costs of 
the trial (assuming it's not small claims track). Even if it goes to trial, 
all you will get if you win is an order that Asda pay you money, which they 
will then do and forget all about it. The people responsible for security 
guards may never even hear the result.
>
> As you can probably tell, I'm a principled man. Such negotiation
> tactics strike me as less than decent, and in fact it mirrors the very
> conduct of Asda.

As the lawyer said to the client: "Ah, it's a matter of principle, is it? 
Then I shall fight the case to your last penny." Principles cost money in 
litigation.
>
> But don't worry, I fully intend to give publicity to this case when it
> is over.

You can try, but a few words in the local paper are the best you are likely 
to achieve. Asda will not be quaking at the prospect. Try to envisage what 
the headline will be - will it interest the editor of the Financial Times? 
Newsnight? The Daily Mail?

Chris R

On 14 Sep, 19:55, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
[...]
> > and
> >costs can be awarded against the losing party.
>
> Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.

Hardly. It's already cost me hundreds of pounds in actual
disbursements, and thousands of pounds in time and effort.


> If you win, then neither small claims nor multi track will be
> significantly different as far as you're concerned as you won't have
> much in the way of costs to claim. If you lose, then small claims will
> result in a relatively minor imposition, while multi track could be
> extremely expensive for you.
>
> Asda's reasons for wanting it in multi-track are that they think they
> will win, but they expect winning to be expensive and they want to
> recover as much of that cost as possible from you when they do win.

Read my lips: Asda do *not* want it on the Multi track. It is the
*Judge* who was of the view that the Multi track is appropriate. As to
Asda "thinking they will win", what evidence leads you to this
conclusion?


> If i was suing them then I'd want it kept in the small claims, so that
> even if they win the case, it will cost them more to defend than they
> will recover in costs. That would provide them with an incentive to
> settle out of court in my favour even if they think they've got a good
> case, as it would be the most cost-effective course of action.

You clearly have not read a word that I've written. And your analysis
of Asda's motives, intentions, and incentives is wildly inaccurate, as
is your concept of what "cost-effectiveness" means to them.

As to the prospects of the case, Asda will have their work cut out
showing that there is a power of arrest when an alarm sounds. But even
if they do show there a power in general, they will still lose *this*
case, because they did not carry out the arrest correctly.

Their only hope of winning this case is to show that, despite the
inherent unlikelihood of the security guard's account in contrast to
my relatively straightforward account, his personal credibility so far
exceeds mine that it is more likely, on the balance of probabilities,
that his account is the truth.

And to be clear, almost all facts are agreed, except for whether the
security guard actually detained me, and in particular touched my
elbow with nominal force, and thereby carried out an arrest.

His job is clearly to hound customers, and the function of the alarm
system depends on being able to hold people against their will when
they flatly refuse to cooperate. He is however a poorly paid agency
worker, probably untrained, and is unlikely to be a particularly
intelligent man.

In these circumstances, where we accept I flatly refused to cooperate,
is the court really to believe his tortuous explanation that he did
not seek to prevent me leaving, he did not lay his hands on me in any
way, and (by implication) that I dialled 999 for no obvious reason and
told the operator that if they did not send the police that there was
going to be violence? I can't imagine Asda putting such a person on
the witness stand to be cross-examined.

Like I've said, they'd have to dig up Johnny Cochran.

On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:30:10 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On 14 Sep, 19:55, Mark Goodge 
>wrote:
>[...]
>> > and
>> >costs can be awarded against the losing party.
>>
>> Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.
>
>Hardly. It's already cost me hundreds of pounds in actual
>disbursements, and thousands of pounds in time and effort.

The amount you can claim for time is limited. The amount you can claim
for effort is nil. You're extremely unlikely to get thousands of
pounds in costs for your own work on the case.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

"Ste"  wrote in message 
news:583d8540-a8b3-4d5d-afa3-3eeddebf12b4@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On 14 Sep, 19:55, Mark Goodge 
> wrote:
> [...]
>> > and
>> >costs can be awarded against the losing party.
>>
>> Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.
>
> Hardly. It's already cost me hundreds of pounds in actual
> disbursements, and thousands of pounds in time and effort.
>
Thousands of pounds of your time?  You won't be able to show this as a loss, 
so not recoverable.

>
>> If you win, then neither small claims nor multi track will be
>> significantly different as far as you're concerned as you won't have
>> much in the way of costs to claim. If you lose, then small claims will
>> result in a relatively minor imposition, while multi track could be
>> extremely expensive for you.
>>
>> Asda's reasons for wanting it in multi-track are that they think they
>> will win, but they expect winning to be expensive and they want to
>> recover as much of that cost as possible from you when they do win.
>
> Read my lips: Asda do *not* want it on the Multi track. It is the
> *Judge* who was of the view that the Multi track is appropriate. As to
> Asda "thinking they will win", what evidence leads you to this
> conclusion?

I'm surprised that Asda down't want it to be Multi track!  I would if I was 
them.

>
>> If i was suing them then I'd want it kept in the small claims, so that
>> even if they win the case, it will cost them more to defend than they
>> will recover in costs. That would provide them with an incentive to
>> settle out of court in my favour even if they think they've got a good
>> case, as it would be the most cost-effective course of action.
>
> You clearly have not read a word that I've written. And your analysis
> of Asda's motives, intentions, and incentives is wildly inaccurate, as
> is your concept of what "cost-effectiveness" means to them.
>
> As to the prospects of the case, Asda will have their work cut out
> showing that there is a power of arrest when an alarm sounds. But even
> if they do show there a power in general, they will still lose *this*
> case, because they did not carry out the arrest correctly.

See below!

>
> Their only hope of winning this case is to show that, despite the
> inherent unlikelihood of the security guard's account in contrast to
> my relatively straightforward account, his personal credibility so far
> exceeds mine that it is more likely, on the balance of probabilities,
> that his account is the truth.
>
> And to be clear, almost all facts are agreed, except for whether the
> security guard actually detained me, and in particular touched my
> elbow with nominal force, and thereby carried out an arrest.
>
> His job is clearly to hound customers, and the function of the alarm
> system depends on being able to hold people against their will when
> they flatly refuse to cooperate. He is however a poorly paid agency
> worker, probably untrained, and is unlikely to be a particularly
> intelligent man.
>
> In these circumstances, where we accept I flatly refused to cooperate,
> is the court really to believe his tortuous explanation that he did
> not seek to prevent me leaving, he did not lay his hands on me in any
> way, and (by implication) that I dialled 999 for no obvious reason and
> told the operator that if they did not send the police that there was
> going to be violence? I can't imagine Asda putting such a person on
> the witness stand to be cross-examined.
>
> Like I've said, they'd have to dig up Johnny Cochran.
>

If you forget about he porkies the security guard says, he believes he had 
reason to stop and question you.  Your refusal to co-operate gave him more 
reason to detain you until he could satisfy himself that you genuinely 
bought the items.  I'm not sure what leg you intend to stand on, but hey.

I would suggest go for the Small claims track if you're taking this to the 
wire.

On 14 Sep, 21:40, "Chris R"  wrote:
> > Haha. If I win, it would be a monumental loss for Asda because of the
> > wider issues. As I've said, Asda's position in this case is analogous
> > to that of the banks and the question of fair bank charges; it's not
> > the cost of conceding one case that they are worried about, it is the
> > cost of conceding all such cases or having a precedent set.
>
> There won't be a meaningful precedent set by a case in the County Court.
> Even if it goes to trial, hardly anyone will get to hear about it, and it
> certainly will not get into the Law Reports as a precedent.

I use the word precedent in a looser sense. I'm well aware that CCJs
do not set precedents - though they can be influential.


> > I have not really broached the subject because it's not about money
>
> I'm afraid litigation is always about money.

I disagree.


> Contrary to popular belief,
> there is no great condemnation of the losing party, or upholding of a lofty
> principle, or even much publicity. The defendant can and will stop a case
> going to trial by making an offer to settle before trial. If you don't
> accept an offer and you get awarded less at trial, you pay all the costs of
> the trial (assuming it's not small claims track). Even if it goes to trial,
> all you will get if you win is an order that Asda pay you money, which they
> will then do and forget all about it. The people responsible for security
> guards may never even hear the result.

Again, I disagree. No company is a law unto themselves simply because
they can afford to fund litigation and settle any judgments arising
therefrom.

If Asda, while offering a settlement, refuse to accept that such
arrests are unlawful, then it seems to me to be clear that they intend
to do exactly the same in future. If such conduct does arise again in
future, I would argue that it amounts to the criminal offence of
harassment. There is, of course, relief available to prevent this kind
of behaviour before it happens.


> > As you can probably tell, I'm a principled man. Such negotiation
> > tactics strike me as less than decent, and in fact it mirrors the very
> > conduct of Asda.
>
> As the lawyer said to the client: "Ah, it's a matter of principle, is it?
> Then I shall fight the case to your last penny." Principles cost money in
> litigation.

Droll. As I say, I'm certainly not going to stoop to their level. The
courts offer quite an adequate remedy as far as I'm concerned, and it
is absurd the idea that I will resort to extortion in order to "win"
in financial terms.


> > But don't worry, I fully intend to give publicity to this case when it
> > is over.
>
> You can try, but a few words in the local paper are the best you are likely
> to achieve. Asda will not be quaking at the prospect. Try to envisage what
> the headline will be - will it interest the editor of the Financial Times?
> Newsnight? The Daily Mail?

I wasn't specifically referring to the papers. And I don't expect the
matter to reach the banner headline - if I did contact the papers,
then it is up to them what they want to do with the story.

On 15 Sep, 00:10, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:30:10 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
> typed:
>
> >On 14 Sep, 19:55, Mark Goodge 
> >wrote:
> >[...]
> >> > and
> >> >costs can be awarded against the losing party.
>
> >> Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.
>
> >Hardly. It's already cost me hundreds of pounds in actual
> >disbursements, and thousands of pounds in time and effort.
>
> The amount you can claim for time is limited. The amount you can claim
> for effort is nil. You're extremely unlikely to get thousands of
> pounds in costs for your own work on the case.

Mark I'm well aware of the rules on costs; I did not ask for your
opinion on them.

The court will allow me, as LIP, a reasonable sum to cover time spent
dealing with the case. I not expect that sum to reflect the total
amount of time that I have spent, but it will cover a proportion of
it.

The contrast between the SCT and MT, is that on the former I can claim
nothing for time, except for time spent as a result of "unreasonable
behaviour". On the latter, full costs are awarded routinely, which for
a LIP will include a sum reflecting time spent.

I also perceive other benefits of the MT. The procedure will be more
formal (which would appear beneficial in a case with a hostile party
willing to behave unreasonably), issues are likely to be argued in
detail rather than decided summarily. Also, while Asda is using "costs
savings" as a reason to treat the proceedings with contempt, the court
is less likely to entertain such excuses for a case assigned to the
MT.

All in all, the court will place more emphasis on real justice with
cases on the MT, whereas with the SCT the emphasis to a great extent
is proceedings on the cheap.

"Mark Goodge"  wrote in message 
news:cpuqc41emjv4h4a94chpva49p661ec4d2j@news.markshouse.net...

>>> Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.
>>
>>Hardly. It's already cost me hundreds of pounds in actual
>>disbursements, and thousands of pounds in time and effort.
>
> The amount you can claim for time is limited. The amount you can claim
> for effort is nil. You're extremely unlikely to get thousands of
> pounds in costs for your own work on the case.

I'm quite worried on ste's behalf, even if he's not worried. There's this 
point about costs, which everybody here can see except ste. There have 
rather a lot of mentions of the word 'principle'. All-in-all, I see a 
disaster coming on. The only way forward that looks at all satisfactory is 
for ste to actually hire a legal team himself. He may as well pay £15k (or 
whatever) to his own legal team than to ASDA's.

"Chris R"  wrote in message 
news:1pydnTT-t7y5x1DVRVnyjgA@posted.plusnet...
>> But don't worry, I fully intend to give publicity to this case when it
>> is over.
>
> You can try, but a few words in the local paper are the best you are 
> likely
> to achieve. Asda will not be quaking at the prospect. Try to envisage what
> the headline will be - will it interest the editor of the Financial Times?
> Newsnight? The Daily Mail?

I just want to second everything that Chris has said (and which I snipped), 
apart from the bit about publicity. I think this is quite an interesting 
story, and it might well make the national press. I disagree with the OP 
about tactics, though. It's perfectly reasonable to publicise this case, 
now, and doing so may help Asda to concentrate its mind on a sensible 
settlement. The OP is completely wrong, though, in thinking he'll be lauded 
as a white knight, righting the wrongs of false imprisonment.

Pretty much everyone here has tried to persuade the OP against having his 
day in court, but he seems to be determined.

"GB"  wrote in message 
news:48ce0faa$0$2517$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
>
> "Mark Goodge"  wrote in message
> news:cpuqc41emjv4h4a94chpva49p661ec4d2j@news.markshouse.net...
>
>>>> Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.
>>>
>>>Hardly. It's already cost me hundreds of pounds in actual
>>>disbursements, and thousands of pounds in time and effort.
>>
>> The amount you can claim for time is limited. The amount you can claim
>> for effort is nil. You're extremely unlikely to get thousands of
>> pounds in costs for your own work on the case.
>
> I'm quite worried on ste's behalf, even if he's not worried. There's this
> point about costs, which everybody here can see except ste. There have
> rather a lot of mentions of the word 'principle'. All-in-all, I see a
> disaster coming on. The only way forward that looks at all satisfactory is
> for ste to actually hire a legal team himself. He may as well pay £15k (or
> whatever) to his own legal team than to ASDA's.

I agree that if the defendant has decided to pull out all the stops and use 
an experienced barrister to argue the case at trial, it would be sensible 
for the claimant to use a barrister too.  The judge may be clever and he may 
be sympathetic to the claimant, but he will also be impressed by a lengthy 
skeleton argument from counsel which proves that black is white.

However, in the OP's position I'd refrain from using a lawyer until I was 
absolutely sure there was to be no realistic settlement offer.

If I got a sensible settlement offer, I'd take it and not insist on an 
admission of liability.  And if I rejected such an offer, my main worry at 
trial would not be establishing liability but the possibility of being 
ordered to pay all the defendants costs after the Part 36 offer.

Ste wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 02:20, "The Todal"  wrote:

>>
>> If they make you a reasonable financial offer and refuse to admit
>> liability, you could be in trouble (costs-wise) if you refuse the
>> offer merely because they won't admit liability. In a case of this
>> sort, I wouldn't expect them to admit liability and I wouldn't
>> expect them to apologise. In short, a financial offer is the most
>> you can expect.
>
> I couldn't care less for an apology now. But surely there is an
> important issue to be tried, which is likely to arise again in the
> future. Even where they want to settle, but refuse to concede points
> of law, is it reasonable behaviour to insist that the matter be tried
> and the law declared?

No, it isn't.   To put it another way, I don't think any lawyer or judge 
would see it as reasonable behaviour, if you have been offered the value of 
your claim. The Civil Procedure Rules make it very clear that the parties 
must try to settle their differences out of court, either by negotiation or 
by mediation or by sharing information to narrow the issues. Anyone who 
insists on his day in court is likely to pay a financial penalty for that 
luxury.

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 06:25:10 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>On 15 Sep, 00:10, Mark Goodge 
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 14 Sep 2008 20:30:10 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
>> typed:
>>
>> >On 14 Sep, 19:55, Mark Goodge 
>> >wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >> > and
>> >> >costs can be awarded against the losing party.
>>
>> >> Your costs are going to be trivial, and theirs are going to be huge.
>>
>> >Hardly. It's already cost me hundreds of pounds in actual
>> >disbursements, and thousands of pounds in time and effort.
>>
>> The amount you can claim for time is limited. The amount you can claim
>> for effort is nil. You're extremely unlikely to get thousands of
>> pounds in costs for your own work on the case.
>
>Mark I'm well aware of the rules on costs;

That isn't the impression you tend to give, unfortunately.

> I did not ask for your
>opinion on them.

I didn't ask you to post your story here. But you did, and I'm
commenting on it. Seems like a fair deal, to me.

>The court will allow me, as LIP, a reasonable sum to cover time spent
>dealing with the case. I not expect that sum to reflect the total
>amount of time that I have spent, but it will cover a proportion of
>it.

How much time have you spent on, it, so far? 

>The contrast between the SCT and MT, is that on the former I can claim
>nothing for time, except for time spent as a result of "unreasonable
>behaviour". On the latter, full costs are awarded routinely, which for
>a LIP will include a sum reflecting time spent.
>
>I also perceive other benefits of the MT. The procedure will be more
>formal (which would appear beneficial in a case with a hostile party
>willing to behave unreasonably), 

It's more likely to be the other way round. Informality tends to
benefit the reasonable, as the unreasonable find it harder to hide
behind procedural detail and convoluted legalese.

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff

On 15 Sep, 21:40, Mark Goodge 
wrote:
> >Mark I'm well aware of the rules on costs;
>
> That isn't the impression you tend to give, unfortunately.

No? So you can point out where I erred in my interpretation of the
rules?


> > I did not ask for your
> >opinion on them.
>
> I didn't ask you to post your story here. But you did, and I'm
> commenting on it. Seems like a fair deal, to me.

If only that were true. You appear to be commenting on your own unique
interpretation of the story, and even then your comments resemble that
of a Jeremiah rather than someone helpfully directing us to the
authorities.


> >The court will allow me, as LIP, a reasonable sum to cover time spent
> >dealing with the case. I not expect that sum to reflect the total
> >amount of time that I have spent, but it will cover a proportion of
> >it.
>
> How much time have you spent on, it, so far?

Hundreds of hours. I say again, however, I am aware that the court
will not allow anywhere near that number of hours to be billed.


> >The contrast between the SCT and MT, is that on the former I can claim
> >nothing for time, except for time spent as a result of "unreasonable
> >behaviour". On the latter, full costs are awarded routinely, which for
> >a LIP will include a sum reflecting time spent.
>
> >I also perceive other benefits of the MT. The procedure will be more
> >formal (which would appear beneficial in a case with a hostile party
> >willing to behave unreasonably),
>
> It's more likely to be the other way round. Informality tends to
> benefit the reasonable, as the unreasonable find it harder to hide
> behind procedural detail and convoluted legalese.

For someone with little if any knowledge and experience, informality
may be the best hope that they have, for they are likely to fall foul
of even the most fundamental of court procedures.

For someone at my level of knowledge and experience - while not
necessarily comparable to that of an experienced lawyer - formality
can be quite beneficial, especially when a party (such as Asda) is not
willing to cooperate with an informal approach. Bear in mind, minor
procedural issues are not going to turn the case, unless the other
party could somehow show that justice has been irrevocably compromised
by failing to follow the procedure.

And the fact of the matter is, the case has now been assigned to the
MT, and would have been notwithstanding my agreement. It is the Judge
rather than either of the parties who advocated this to be the most
appropriate track.

GB wrote:
> "Chris R"  wrote in message
> news:1pydnTT-t7y5x1DVRVnyjgA@posted.plusnet...
>>> But don't worry, I fully intend to give publicity to this case when
>>> it is over.
>>
>> You can try, but a few words in the local paper are the best you are
>> likely
>> to achieve. Asda will not be quaking at the prospect. Try to
>> envisage what the headline will be - will it interest the editor of
>> the Financial Times? Newsnight? The Daily Mail?
>
> I just want to second everything that Chris has said (and which I
> snipped), apart from the bit about publicity. I think this is quite
> an interesting story, and it might well make the national press. I
> disagree with the OP about tactics, though. It's perfectly reasonable
> to publicise this case, now, and doing so may help Asda to
> concentrate its mind on a sensible settlement. The OP is completely
> wrong, though, in thinking he'll be lauded as a white knight,
> righting the wrongs of false imprisonment.
>
> Pretty much everyone here has tried to persuade the OP against having
> his day in court, but he seems to be determined.

And credit to him - if he values his reputation higher than a holiday or a 
car, then it's worth the time and expense to him.

I also agree re publicity - local tv news for example, very powerful shaming 
effect upon Asda.

"Steve Walker"  wrote in message 
news:6jamamF2apsrU1@mid.individual.net...
>
> I also agree re publicity - local tv news for example, very powerful 
> shaming
> effect upon Asda.

The OP is after blood, and in fact publicity is the one thing he can do to 
them that could hurt them. Nobody wants to think that they might be done 
over by the security guards at Asda, and a bit of adverse publicity could 
dent sales enough for someone at Asda to notice and take some action.

GB wrote:
> "Steve Walker"  wrote in message
> news:6jamamF2apsrU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> I also agree re publicity - local tv news for example, very powerful
>> shaming
>> effect upon Asda.
>
> The OP is after blood, and in fact publicity is the one thing he can
> do to them that could hurt them. Nobody wants to think that they
> might be done over by the security guards at Asda, and a bit of
> adverse publicity could dent sales enough for someone at Asda to
> notice and take some action.

Mmm - that 'pocket-patting' motif in their ads is so exploitable....

On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 08:35:03 퍝, "GB"  wrote-I'm quite worried on ste's behalf, even if he's not worried. There's this 
-point about costs, which everybody here can see except ste. There have 
-rather a lot of mentions of the word 'principle'. All-in-all, I see a 
-disaster coming on. The only way forward that looks at all satisfactory is 
-for ste to actually hire a legal team himself. He may as well pay £15k (or 
-whatever) to his own legal team than to ASDA's.

Why are you worried? So many people post to this newsgroup, and the other place,
and either get recommended to take court action, or all-guns-blazing state all
manner of court action, never to be heard of again.

I for one look forward to Ste's court case, because it's fascinating seeing
someone follow through a case on here from beginning to end, where we normally
only get a snapshot. I hope it doesn't end with a settlement and "gagging order"
so that we never hear the result....

-Rob
robatwork at mail dot com

Rob S wrote:

> I for one look forward to Ste's court case, because it's fascinating
> seeing someone follow through a case on here from beginning to end,
> where we normally only get a snapshot. I hope it doesn't end with a
> settlement and "gagging order" so that we never hear the result....

Is your point that litigation is a great spectator sport, provided somebody 
else is paying for it of course? I'm afraid that I care about the outcome, 
although obviously not nearly as much as I would care if I were involved in 
this case myself.

In article <48d28fa8$0$2501$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>,
 "GB"  wrote:

> Rob S wrote:
> 
> > I for one look forward to Ste's court case, because it's fascinating
> > seeing someone follow through a case on here from beginning to end,
> > where we normally only get a snapshot. I hope it doesn't end with a
> > settlement and "gagging order" so that we never hear the result....
> 
> Is your point that litigation is a great spectator sport, provided somebody 
> else is paying for it of course? I'm afraid that I care about the outcome, 
> although obviously not nearly as much as I would care if I were involved in 
> this case myself.

I am very insterested in the outcome of this case and not just a 
'spectator sport'. 

A similar thing happened to me when I was far too young and green to 
know I could complain. Additional tags were in the pockets of a garment 
I'd bought in a department store near where I worked in Oxford St. The 
alarms went off went I left the shop and I was unceremoniously and 
impolitely hauled back into the shop. Production of my receipt and the 
removal of the three extra tags allowed me to leave. An apology was not 
offered.

A worse problem for me was that a senior member of the company I worked 
for had witnessed me being hauled back into the shop and I was therefore 
put in another humilitating situation of having to explain myself back 
at the office.

I think I would be as adamant as Ste to make my point if such a thing 
were to happen again.

-- 
Sara

The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

In message <48d28fa8$0$2501$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk>, at 18:30:10 on 
Thu, 18 Sep 2008, GB  remarked:
>Is your point that litigation is a great spectator sport, provided somebody
>else is paying for it of course? I'm afraid that I care about the outcome,
>although obviously not nearly as much as I would care if I were involved in
>this case myself.

I also care because I want to understand whether these sorts of actions 
are futile or not. Sadly, as others have alluded to, we rarely get any 
feedback about the ultimate results in cases that people ask for advice 
on.

-- 
Roland Perry

On Sat, 13 Sep 2008 08:20:10 +0100, Ste put finger to keyboard and
typed:

>
>Anyway there's a CMC upcoming on Monday, so I'll keep you regaled as
>the case proceeds.

JOOI, what happened with this? I haven't seen any updates since after
the time when the CMC was due to take place.

(This may be due to my newsreader, in which case I can probably pick
up the thread again if someone can point me to the relevant message
ID).

Mark
-- 
"There must be a place, under the sun, where hearts of olden 
glory grow young"
http://mark.goodge.co.uk - my pointless blog
http://www.good-stuff.co.uk - my less pointless stuff