how long does a judge have to listen before making a decision?

ballsymchugh

Is there ever a case where a judge would sit in the bench and listen to the opening lines of the case, and think 'wait a sec, this is a right load of b****x' and stop the case from going further?

this case was reported in the paper today, and i can't see how this woman's solicitor thought she would have a case.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/courts/woman-who-tore-muscle-at-gym-loses-damages-claim-of-euro38000-2257388.html

i may not be legally minded but having spent more than half my earthly life involved in sport, i know that this kind of stuff just happens. i've been flukey enough to get away without a major injury, and then there's fernando torres who couldn't make one sprint in the biggest game of his life due to pulling a muscle. is there ever a time when a judge would stop proceedings, inform the plaintiff that "sh1t happens' in more formal terms and kindly ask them to stop wasting the time of the courts system? why do people always have to blame someone else for their own misfortune?!!

Reloc8

ballsymchugh wrote: »

why do people always have to blame someone else for their own misfortune?!!

I think this is the real question.

Maybe we should have some pre-Judges appointed though

Seriously, a Judge has to hear a case to the extent that any one involved is seen to get a fair hearing. Your mileage may vary etc.

MrPudding

Reloc8 wrote: »

I think this is the real question.

Maybe we should have some pre-Judges appointed though

Seriously, a Judge has to hear a case to the extent that any one involved is seen to get a fair hearing. Your mileage may vary etc.

Can some blame be attached to the solicitors that actually bring these kind of cases to the courts?

MrP

Reloc8

Behind every case is a client who decides to go to court. Its the client who makes that decision.

I think it would be dangerous if solicitors were actively preventing people from going to court just because they found a certain cause of action or defence distasteful.

There are indeed potential penalties under rules of court where legal costs are wasted and this is the lawyers fault.

Mary Hairy

There was a conflict of fact in the case. The judge decides who to believe. It may well have been that another judge may have decided otherwise. In some cases insurance companies settle cases like this just because of nuisance value. I know a solicitor who gave a client a letter advising a client not to run a case. The defence were agreeing to a strike out without costs if the case did not run . The case ran and one of the defence witnesses did not come across well. The client got an award, much to the surprise of the solicitor.

johnnyskeleton

MrPudding wrote: »

Can some blame be attached to the solicitors that actually bring these kind of cases to the courts?

MrP

I dunno, can some blame be attached to the doctors who treat them, the employers who indugle them or the taxi drivers who carry them?

ballsymchugh

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dunno, can some blame be attached to the doctors who treat them, the employers who indugle them or the taxi drivers who carry them?

oh come on, you know what he means.

working in the medical field myself i know i can only advise a patient on their options and on what i think would be best for them. if they choose to go down a route that i don't totally agree with, it's up to me to refer them to someone else but at least i know that i can still go home knowing that i didn't compromise any principles.
so, can a lawyer not advise the client of the options and if they choose a route that the lawyer doesn't completely agree with, can the lawyer not refer them??
the doctor should treat them, but shouldn't advise them on legal action unless asked specifically by the appointed solicitor.

Barr

Would the plaintiffs solicitor still get paid in this case ?

Curunina

Just to address the original question, a judge is supposed to allow both sides present their case, within reason. However, in reality, many judges can fail to give something a fair hearing - I know of a Circuit Court judge who heard a personal injuries case in 15 mins - and not a totally spurious claim - refused to hear medical evidence, scanned reports, and made an award in the Plaintiff's favour - of about €8,000 - which is about the figure that makes it uneconomical for the defence to appeal.
It was the last day of term, and apparently he had a pending tee time...

FreudianSlippers

ballsymchugh wrote: »

oh come on, you know what he means.

working in the medical field myself i know i can only advise a patient on their options and on what i think would be best for them. if they choose to go down a route that i don't totally agree with, it's up to me to refer them to someone else but at least i know that i can still go home knowing that i didn't compromise any principles.
so, can a lawyer not advise the client of the options and if they choose a route that the lawyer doesn't completely agree with, can the lawyer not refer them??
the doctor should treat them, but shouldn't advise them on legal action unless asked specifically by the appointed solicitor.

I cannot speak for Solicitors, however Barristers can advise all day long - but it is the course of the client which must be followed. The caveat there, as I'm sure it is with doctors (and likely Solicitors), is that Barristers cannot follow a course of action which compromises their code of ethics. Barristers can also not intentionally mislead the court or put forward a positive defence where the client has admitted guilt (they can put the prosecution on proof).
But bar those exceptions, Barristers must continue to act and carry out the case the client wants them to even if it is against their advice and is potentially the wrong path.

Reloc8

Barr wrote: »

Would the plaintiffs solicitor still get paid in this case ?

Solicitors are advised to indicate their fees and the basis on which they will be charged in advance of the case. As with any professional engaged to do a job, it is a matter of contract between them and their client.