Can solicitors be sued in the small claims?

Thirdfox

Would they fall under the provision of a service under SoGSoS Act?

I don't see why not...as long as the claim is under 2000 euro right?

Procrastastudy

Not wishing to hijack this thread but as this question is relevant to the OP I'll ask anyway. Assuming you do take someone to small claims what comeback is there on you if you lose? For example if you were to take a solicitor to Small Claims could they counter sue for their expenses for time in defending the claim. I know it's only filling out a form but I suppose you could claim an hour?

Thirdfox

For a small claims the solicitor wouldn't be a consumer of a business as the aggrieved citizen didn't provide a good or service. So you couldn't take a new claim against them...

But it would probably be a district court matter? Or simply apply for some costs as a winning party in the SCC?

Milk & Honey

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Not wishing to hijack this thread but as this question is relevant to the OP I'll ask anyway. Assuming you do take someone to small claims what comeback is there on you if you lose? For example if you were to take a solicitor to Small Claims could they counter sue for their expenses for time in defending the claim. I know it's only filling out a form but I suppose you could claim an hour?

Successful Defendants in the Small Claims Court do not get costs. If they want to try and get costs they would have to counter sue for an amount greater than €2k. That would put it into the District Court.

johnnyskeleton

Not to derail the OP even further, but has anyone ever been in the small claims court?

My understanding is that it is the district court with no lawyers. Does it have special sittings etc? Given that some towns only have one district court sitting per month, is it only in Dublin and Cork that it sits regularly? If there are very few such cases in a given period, do they just put those claims in with the normal District Court lists?

Procrastastudy

I know it's not adjudicated by a Judge - I was also under the impression it was all paperwork based but could be wrong on that.

Thirdfox

You could have a "day in court" as it were and I believe it is adjudicated by a judge (if needs be):

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/small_claims_court.html

Anyone know the answer to the solicitor question?

Procrastastudy

Cheers for the link - I only ever had to deal with them on paper. We almost always ignored them and just sent a cheque for what ever was being claimed. Well until the bailiffs turned up one day to one of our shops because the manager had forgot to send the bloody thing off the the legal dept. in the UK.

A (semi) interesting point the 'faulty goods' being claimed for by the Muppet customer never had to be returned to us because we didn't dispute the claim. In the words of the bailiff; "They'll return them if they have a decency" but had no obligation to. Obviously partly our fault for not disputing the thing but I got the impression the customer knew what he was doing from my dealings with it.

Doesn't look like he can claim against a Solicitor given how it's worded on that link. Workmanship would seem to indicate something tangible but as stated before I know just slightly less than bugger all...

Grolschevik

As far as I know -- which isn't very far! -- I don't think there's any reason why you couldn't go the small claims route to recover fees for inadequate provision of services. How you would prove inadequate provision of services is another matter, and you could possibly be asked whether you had made a complaint to the professional body.

I don't think that you could simultaneously run a Law Society/Disciplinary Tribunal action and a small claims action. I'd say it'd have to be be one or the other.

Thirdfox

GCDLawstudent wrote: »

Doesn't look like he can claim against a Solicitor given how it's worded on that link. Workmanship would seem to indicate something tangible but as stated before I know just slightly less than bugger all...

I think the wording on that page may have been a little misleading - note the "such as". Sale of Goods and Supply of Services Act would definitely cover the inadequate supply of services.

Just working it out in my head - the provision of legal services couldn't possibly fall outside of SoGSoS - though I guess generally professional negligence claims would be much higher than 2000 euro.

SoGSoS 1980 wrote:

39.—Subject to section 40, in every contract for the supply of a service where the supplier is acting in the course of a business, the following terms are implied—


(a) that the supplier has the necessary skill to render the service,


(b) that he will supply the service with due skill, care and diligence,

Professional negligence would fall outside of due skill, care and diligence I imagine

Grolschevik wrote: »

As far as I know -- which isn't very far! -- I don't think there's any reason why you couldn't go the small claims route to recover fees for inadequate provision of services. How you would prove inadequate provision of services is another matter, and you could possibly be asked whether you had made a complaint to the professional body.

I don't think that you could simultaneously run a Law Society/Disciplinary Tribunal action and a small claims action. I'd say it'd have to be be one or the other.

Good point - they specifically point out that the court will ask you what actions have you taken to remedy the situation, and I imagine one should go to the Law Society first.

johnnyskeleton

Thirdfox wrote: »

You could have a "day in court" as it were and I believe it is adjudicated by a judge (if needs be):

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts_system/small_claims_court.html

Anyone know the answer to the solicitor question?

I suppose you could argue that you are suing for a poor service, but not for return of funds. But it would seem futile to bring a professional negligence claim against a solicitor in the small claims court.

Corruptable

From what I'd always understood the Small Claims Court is generally administered by the County Registrar and most small claims generally go no further unless it's disputed and can't be settled. It would then go for a court hearing.

Full procedure here

Kosseegan

The County Registrar has nothing to to with small claims. I have been in the Small Claims Court and it has been presided ovcer by a Judge of the District Court. The Court Clerks ( aka) registrars deal with preliminary matters. Even your link states that the hearing is before a District Court Judge.

Thirdfox

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that you are suing for a poor service, but not for return of funds. But it would seem futile to bring a professional negligence claim against a solicitor in the small claims court.

Not at all being facetious, but why futile? If the case is easily proven surely it'd be better to go small claims than district court?

Of course law society complaint could come before either.

Corruptable

Kosseegan wrote: »

The County Registrar has nothing to to with small claims. I have been in the Small Claims Court and it has been presided ovcer by a Judge of the District Court. The Court Clerks ( aka) registrars deal with preliminary matters. Even your link states that the hearing is before a District Court Judge.

By administered I meant all the preliminary matters and contact with the respondent. I've never dealt with it myself, but from feedback from those regularly in the courts, the Registrar seemed to be the key contact, obviously prior to any hearing or if liability was accepted by the respondent.

Milk & Honey

Corruptable wrote: »

By administered I meant all the preliminary matters and contact with the respondent. I've never dealt with it myself, but from feedback from those regularly in the courts, the Registrar seemed to be the key contact, obviously prior to any hearing or if liability was accepted by the respondent.

You are confusing the County Registrar with the Court Registrars. The Court Registrars do not have any connection with the County Registrar.

johnnyskeleton

Thirdfox wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I suppose you could argue that you are suing for a poor service, but not for return of funds. But it would seem futile to bring a professional negligence claim against a solicitor in the small claims court.

Not at all being facetious, but why futile? If the case is easily proven surely it'd be better to go small claims than district court?

Of course law society complaint could come before either.

How do you prove professional negligence when the only person qualified to say so is the defendant, who is unlikely to give such evidence. If you are going to run the case properly ie with a solicitor to give evidence of negligence why not go before the proper courts?

Thirdfox

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

How do you prove professional negligence when the only person qualified to say so is the defendant, who is unlikely to give such evidence. If you are going to run the case properly ie with a solicitor to give evidence of negligence why not go before the proper courts?

Ah, get you now. I was thinking more along the lines that while we may call it professional negligence the average punter/consumer can rely on the due care and diligence of the provision of a service in SOGSOS. As in, sure we could have ultimately proved prof. neglig if needs be but SOGSOS is good enough to get your money back off the solicitor in the SCC

suemartin

Ref the procedure for small claims - if both sides agree/not contested then Court registrar can deal with the matter. If it's contested a judge hears it.

To prove negligence by any professional you'd probably need an expert to say there was negligence in the first place...

johnnyskeleton

Thirdfox wrote: »

Ah, get you now. I was thinking more along the lines that while we may call it professional negligence the average punter/consumer can rely on the due care and diligence of the provision of a service in SOGSOS. As in, sure we could have ultimately proved prof. neglig if needs be but SOGSOS is good enough to get your money back off the solicitor in the SCC

Is getting your money back arguably debt collection and therefore also not covered?

Thirdfox

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is getting your money back arguably debt collection and therefore also not covered?

Hmm, I don't see much of a difference in going to a hairdressers, getting a bad haircut ("professionally negligent" as it were - asked to be dyed blonde they dyed it electro-pink) and wanting money back vs. going into a solicitors, getting bad service (send this letter to X by Y date or else I'll incur a fixed penalty etc) and wanting compensation for losses incurred.

One business fault led me to have to get a re-dying of hair. The other cost me a fixed penalty due to "shoddy" service (or some other quantifiable damage).

Or is there something that distinguishes the two service providers? When both providers failed to follow clear instructions that they were in the position to carry out.

My point was that while it technically could be classified as professional negligence. The standard of proof needed in the SCC would appear to be much lower since one is using the SOGSOS Act and you wouldn't need the expert witnesses etc since you're not taking a case on professional negligence, but on due care on provision of a service etc.

greyfox123

Your method of recourse is the Law Society Of Ireland and their complaints Dept where a complaint upheld can be compensated up to 15k.

Kosseegan

greyfox123 wrote: »

Your method of recourse is the Law Society Of Ireland and their complaints Dept where a complaint upheld can be compensated up to 15k.

the Law Society do not deal with negligence claims. An allegation of unprofessional conduct would have to be made.

boo3000

what would be an estimate on costs on taking a SOGSOS Act case against a solicitor in the district court?

jasonpat

The idea is not bad to use solicitors for small claims.