Is there an increase in Judicial Review's sought by Lay Litigant over planning decisi

v638sg7k1a92bx

Two high profile cases in recent times. Apple data centre in Galway and Howth Harbour

Unless the applicants are receiving civil legal aid surely they run the risk of having costs awarded against them, especially in those two specific cases? Are lay litigants on the rise in general and what are the reasons, other than legal costs, as to why lay litigants are more confident in the merits of their case that they are willing to run the risk of having costs awarded against them?

Mr. Incognito

Lay litigants are on the rise generally.

They make a balls of the procedures and cant draft pleadings properly so even meritorious cases get thrown out.

They waste court time and their own at huge financial risk.

They only reason they continue is because they are too stupid or arrogant to pay for lawyers but all learn the value of them subsequently

v638sg7k1a92bx

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Lay litigants are on the rise generally.

They make a balls of the procedures and cant draft pleadings properly so even meritorious cases get thrown out.

They waste court time and their own at huge financial risk.

They only reason they continue is because they are too stupid or arrogant to pay for lawyers but all learn the value of them subsequently

But particularly in those two cases surely they wouldn't wade into a JR without some type of legal advice or representation.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Lay litigants are on the rise generally.

They make a balls of the procedures and cant draft pleadings properly so even meritorious cases get thrown out.

They waste court time and their own at huge financial risk.

They only reason they continue is because they are too stupid or arrogant to pay for lawyers but all learn the value of them subsequently

I thought costs could only be secured against individuals where the notice parties can demonstrate that they couldn't afford to pay those costs in the event that they lose?
Even in cases where the applicant does lose, a judge is unlikely to award costs against them where they have a legitimate argument.

Mr. Incognito

brenbrady wrote: »

I thought costs could only be secured against individuals where the notice parties can demonstrate that they couldn't afford to pay those costs in the event that they lose?
Even in cases where the applicant does lose, a judge is unlikely to award costs against them where they have a legitimate argument.

See. Ignorance is bliss.

I could tell you that you are wrong and costs follow the event but i prefer the recent string of costs awards against lay litigants to seep into the collective consciousness slowly

Ferrari3600

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Lay litigants are on the rise generally.

They make a balls of the procedures and cant draft pleadings properly so even meritorious cases get thrown out.

They waste court time and their own at huge financial risk.

They only reason they continue is because they are too stupid or arrogant to pay for lawyers but all learn the value of them subsequently.

This is interesting.

I contacted a certain firm that advertises itself as specialist in judicial reviews and also advertises itself as giving free initial consultations thereon looking for a steer on a certain matter, which I outlined in brief. After a look, they said that they did not think there were sufficient grounds for a judicial review. I said, fair enough, no problem, and asked if they could recommend another firm for a second look. I got back the blunt response 'No, we can't'.

One wonders if the Dublin legal profession is something of a closed shop and that complainants with - as you've acknowledged yourself - in some cases, genuinely meritorious cases and have in fact, consulted lawyers but have been turned down?

Edit: I should clarify the matter I asked for a steer on has nothing to do with the absurd 'Freeman on the Land' brigade and is in a completely different area of law.

Peregrinus

Laywers tend not to turn down genuinely meritorious cases because they thereby deprive themselves of the opportunity to earn money by representing the parties in those cases.

So, if a law firm turns down a case on the grounds that it's not meritorious, the likely possiblities are:

(a) it's not meritorious; or

(b) it's meritorious, but the lawyers are too incompetent to see this.

I'm not saying that lawyers are never incompetent but, in general, unless you have some reason to doubt the competence of the lawyers you have consulted, the odds are that explanation (a) is the correct one.

Law is not a closed shop in this sense. You don't need a recommendation from the first lawyers in order to consult others. Most likely the reason that they don't give you a recommendation is that they think your case is not meritorious, and they don't want to earn a reputation for dispatching clients with unmeritorious cases to other firms who then have to spend time reviewing the case to conclude that it is unmeritorious. But none of this prevents you from seeking a second opinion from a firm that hasn't been recommended by the first firm.

FishOnABike

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

I contacted a certain firm that advertises itself as specialist in judicial reviews and also advertises itself as giving free initial consultations thereon looking for a steer on a certain matter, which I outlined in brief. After a look, they said that they did not think there were sufficient grounds for a judicial review. I said, fair enough, no problem, and asked if they could recommend another firm for a second look. I got back the blunt response 'No, we can't'.

You don't need their recommendation to look elsewhere for a second opinion. If they don't think the action has merit I can see why they wouldn't their name (and reputation) being used in wasting another firm's time. But if you have deep enough pockets you will possibly find someone who is willing to empty them for you, even on a case with questionable merit.

Ferrari3600 wrote: »

One wonders if the Dublin legal profession is something of a closed shop and that complainants with - as you've acknowledged yourself - in some cases, genuinely meritorious cases and have in fact, consulted lawyers but have been turned down?

If a case is meritorious and the person has the means to pay they should be able to find a legal professional to represent them if they look hard enough. If their ability to fund an action is doubtful their choices (and access to the law) are limited. Anecdotally I have heard of instances where the Legal Aid Board have turned down meritorious applications seemingly as a cost containment measure.

FishOnABike

Peregrinus wrote: »

Laywers tend not to turn down genuinely meritorious cases because they thereby deprive themselves of the opportunity to earn money by representing the parties in those cases.

So, if a law firm turns down a case on the grounds that it's not meritorious, the likely possiblities are:

(a) it's not meritorious; or

(b) it's meritorious, but the lawyers are too incompetent to see this.

I'm not saying that lawyers are never incompetent but, in general, unless you have some reason to doubt the competence of the lawyers you have consulted, the odds are that explanation (a) is the correct one.

Law is not a closed shop in this sense. You don't need a recommendation from the first lawyers in order to consult others. Most likely the reason that they don't give you a recommendation is that they think your case is not meritorious, and they don't want to earn a reputation for dispatching clients with unmeritorious cases to other firms who then have to spend time reviewing the case to conclude that it is unmeritorious. But none of this prevents you from seeking a second opinion from a firm that hasn't been recommended by the first firm.

I'd add an option (c) to that.
(c) It is meritorious but the risk : reward ratio is too high due to
(c.1) Uncertainty in the outcome (even of a meritorious case)
(c.2) Uncertainty in the event of success of all or part of the costs being awarded against the other side.
(c.3) the recoverability of any costs that might be awarded
(c.4) the ability of the potential litigant to pay should they lose or not be able to recover costs awarded to them.

Peregrinus

I think if it's meritorious but risky the lawyers are not going to advise that it is without merit (and if they do they are being negligent and unprofessional). In that case, I don't think they'd have any difficulty in saying "Look, your case has merit, but it's not an open and shut case. You should think very carefully about the risks of proceeding. We wouldn't be happy to take this case (or, quite possibly, we wouldn't take this case unless paid such-and-such an amount up front).

That's not an unusual conversation for a lawyer to have, and it can be quite a long conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the strategies that might be adopted to pursue it to best advantage, and the financial risks to the plaintiff and whether they can be managed. In general a lawyer has no objection to taking a case of uncertain merit provided (a) the client understands that the case is of little or doubtful merit, and understands the risks of pursuing it, and (b) the lawyer is satisfied that he will be paid. This does mean that wealthy clients are in a better position to pursue cases of doubtful merit. But, hey, wealthy people are better positioned to do lots of things than the rest of us are. That's the whole point of being wealthy.

FishOnABike

Peregrinus wrote: »

I think if it's meritorious but risky the lawyers are not going to advise that it is without merit (and if they do they are being negligent and unprofessional). In that case, I don't think they'd have any difficulty in saying "Look, your case has merit, but it's not an open and shut case. You should think very carefully about the risks of proceeding. We wouldn't be happy to take this case (or, quite possibly, we wouldn't take this case unless paid such-and-such an amount up front).

That's not an unusual conversation for a lawyer to have, and it can be quite a long conversation about the strengths and weaknesses of the case, the strategies that might be adopted to pursue it to best advantage, and the financial risks to the plaintiff and whether they can be managed. In general a lawyer has no objection to taking a case of uncertain merit provided (a) the client understands that the case is of little or doubtful merit, and understands the risks of pursuing it, and (b) the lawyer is satisfied that he will be paid. This does mean that wealthy clients are in a better position to pursue cases of doubtful merit. But, hey, wealthy people are better positioned to do lots of things than the rest of us are. That's the whole point of being wealthy.

True, one is unlikely to take on a hopeless case but it is up to a potential litigant to weigh up the pros and cons put to them by their legal advisors. Some litigants can exhibit a degree of tunnel vision with regard to the righteousness of their cause and would do well to remember we don't have courts of justice but courts of law (and sometimes even that is questionable).

A wealthy or corporate litigant can easily financially bully and drown a smaller litigant in litigation and threaten the potential of ruinous costs - our own government has been far from innocent in this regard when you look at the numerous cases about institutional abuse, hepatitis c, symphisotomy, abuse in schools, etc....

Peregrinus

FishOnABike wrote: »

True, one is unlikely to take on a hopeless case but it is up to a potential litigant to weigh up the pros and cons put to them by their legal advisors. Some litigants can exhibit a degree of tunnel vision with regard to the righteousness of their cause and would do well to remember we don't have courts of justice but courts of law (and sometimes even that is questionable).

A wealthy or corporate litigant can easily financially bully and drown a smaller litigant in litigation and threaten the potential of ruinous costs - our own government has been far from innocent in this regard when you look at the numerous cases about institutional abuse, hepatitis c, symphisotomy, abuse in schools, etc....

All of that is true. But none of that would lead your lawyer to tell you "your cse is without merit". What he would tell you is that you are going to face this difficulty and that difficulty in your case, and be exposed to this risk and that risk. If he says that your case is without merit then the odds-on favourite explanation for why he says this is that your case is, in fact, without merit.

Mr. Incognito

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

See. Ignorance is bliss.

I could tell you that you are wrong and costs follow the event but i prefer the recent string of costs awards against lay litigants to seep into the collective consciousness slowly

Or you you could just let Order 29 RSC seep into your consciousness.

Really Interested

brenbrady wrote: »

Or you you could just let Order 29 RSC seep into your consciousness.

Order 29 while it does relate to costs is security for costs is not a bar on the usual costs order that costs follow the event. The relevant order is order 99.

Security for costs is used if either party is worried about the others ability to pay. Such security is not possible against a resident and is usually used against non resident litigants or limited liability companies.

FishOnABike

Peregrinus wrote: »

All of that is true. But none of that would lead your lawyer to tell you "your cse is without merit". What he would tell you is that you are going to face this difficulty and that difficulty in your case, and be exposed to this risk and that risk. If he says that your case is without merit then the odds-on favourite explanation for why he says this is that your case is, in fact, without merit.

Agreed and because a lawyer doesn't have any personal stake in a potential case, they will be far more objective and realistic on the merits and risks of a case. It is frequently far more difficult for a potential litigant to have the same detached objectivity because they are too close to and too involved in the matter.

Mr. Incognito

brenbrady wrote: »

Or you you could just let Order 29 RSC seep into your consciousness.

I think you misunderstand where this is applied

Really Interested

Really Interested wrote: »

Order 29 while it does relate to costs is security for costs is not a bar on the usual costs order that costs follow the event. The relevant order is order 99.

Security for costs is used if either party is worried about the others ability to pay. Such security is not possible against a resident and is usually used against non resident litigants or limited liability companies.

I was referring to security for costs.

Really Interested

You said

"I thought costs could only be secured against individuals where the notice parties can demonstrate that they couldn't afford to pay those costs in the event that they lose?
Even in cases where the applicant does lose, a judge is unlikely to award costs against them where they have a legitimate argument."

From experience judges award costs all the time against persons who have no ability to ever pay them short of a lotto win.

Some times in the High Court on the basis of a issue of Public Importance a court may not award costs and in fact has been know to award costs to the side that lost.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Really Interested

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Very true, but I have seen cases where a person took an lost a JR, costs awarded against him. Then has a second JR with different legal team, on different issue, wins and the State set off costs.

Have also see a Insurance company who got a costs order getting an order to get all an award and costs in another winning case.