They’re English - I think they use apostrophe’s and other punctuation mark’s differently there.
Because it’s her word against his that it happened at all. That he probably did it is good enough for civil court, but not criminal.
The constrasting approach to tort damages is one of the major differences between US and English civil law. English lawyers are amazed at multi-million awards by US courts for what seem to be relatively small injuries; US lawyers are appalled by awards of a few £k by English courts for egregious violations of personal or property rights.
By and large, costs in the English courts are strictly controlled. I’ve sat at the end of a relatively short case as the judge has gone through the costs schedule line-by-line, holding that (for instance) preparation for a directions hearing should have taken no more than 6 hours rather than the 8 claimed. We now have to submit a detailed costs budget for cases valued at over £25,000 and have it approved at an early stage, and unless you can persuade the judge to extend it later, that’s your ceiling.
Yes, I was amazed at the costs in this case. But this is what can happen in boundary disputes, which in my experience are some of the most toxic and bitter cases to come before courts (as bad as child access disputes, and far more expensive.)
We’ve recently had another round of major changes to the Civil Procedure Rules, and these have introduced still tighter rules on proportionality of costs to value of claim. Mrs Sexton’s claim would have been under the older rules, but It would now be extraordinary for a £30k claim to result in £300k costs; the sort of very bad conduct seen in this case would probably be the only basis on which a judge would allow it.
5 Likes
One thing that’s very different from the U.S.: she didn’t need to sue for extra money to pay her medical bills when they attacked her.
2 Likes
Almost certainly not what you then go on to pronounce very unlikely.
Anyone who has already resorted to violence is capable of more.
1 Like
Just here?
1 Like
“Neighbour’s” is clearly incorrect, as it is meant to be a simple plural, but “others’” might be okay. It’s not just one neighbor borrowing ladders, it’s the whole lot of them having a filthy orgy of ladder-lending. Therefore there is more than one other to borrow a ladder from, therefore the plural possessive applies.
1 Like
All this for a 300K property, which in Kent is almost peanuts.
It can’t be just greed. Somebody must have enjoyed this… up to the bitter end.
1 Like
Have you been there? It doesn’t have quite the percentage of Berkshire Hunts as, well, Berkshire (or you Surrey. Don’t think you’re getting away with it), but it’s got it’s share…
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
