Is it possible to act for yourself in a high court civil action

dublin.15

Is it possible to act for yourself in a high court civil action .
I cant get a Solictor or Barrister to take my case as it would be the first of its kind in Ireland,
Is it possible for me to represent myself

hullaballoo

You might as well just burn €100,000.00. Same result but far less stressful.

dublin.15

hullaballoo wrote: »

You might as well just burn €100,000.00. Same result but far less stressful.

Why? Do u think there is no chance of winning a case without legal representation

endacl

If you can kick a ball you can play a match. You probably wouldn’t do very well against a pro though...

dublin.15

hullaballoo wrote: »

You might as well just burn €100,000.00. Same result but far less stressful.

Why? Do u think there is no chance of winning a case without legal representation

johnnyskeleton

Yes, you are entitled to represent yourself in the vast majority of High Court cases.

Maybe look for another solicitor. If your case is stateable and you discharge their fees upfront, you will easily find a solicitor who will assist you.

antoinolachtnai

dublin.15 wrote: »

Why? Do u think there is no chance of winning a case without legal representation

The first and biggest problem is that there is a total ‘inequality of arms’, even if your opponent happens to have picked the worst barrister in the Library (which will probably not happen). This means that the other side has resources that you don’t. In particular they benefit from the advice and expertise of someone who has at the very least a passing knowledge of legal procedure.

The second problem is this. If your case is important and novel as you believe it to be it might be of interest to the legal profession. But it isn’t. The most likely reason for this is that they consider it unwinnable or difficult to win. Alternatively or additionally they may not find you appealing as a client. Judges and barristers come from the same gene pool so if you find this kind of reticence it may be that the judge will be similarly reticent about giving your case the fullest of hearings which you think it deserves and even after a full hearing may be reticent about giving you the outcome you want.

These are high level problems. There are many other practical problems. You need time and resources. You have to deal with the issue of costs if you lose. You may need to learn complicated and arcane skills and knowledge. You may need a new suit. The list goes on.

dublin.15

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, you are entitled to represent yourself in the vast majority of High Court cases.

Maybe look for another solicitor. If your case is stateable and you discharge their fees upfront, you will easily find a solicitor who will assist you.

I have tried 15 Solictors,none will take the case.

Homer

"A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for his client"

dublin.15

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The first and biggest problem is that there is a total ‘inequality of arms’, even if your opponent happens to have picked the worst barrister in the Library (which will probably not happen). This means that the other side has resources that you don’t. In particular they benefit from the advice and expertise of someone who has at the very least a passing knowledge of legal procedure.

The second problem is this. If your case is important and novel as you believe it to be it might be of interest to the legal profession. But it isn’t. The most likely reason for this is that they consider it unwinnable or difficult to win. Alternatively or additionally they may not find you appealing as a client. Judges and barristers come from the same gene pool so if you find this kind of reticence it may be that the judge will be similarly reticent about giving your case the fullest of hearings which you think it deserves and even after a full hearing may be reticent about giving you the outcome you want.

These are high level problems. There are many other practical problems. You need time and resources. You have to deal with the issue of costs if you lose. You may need to learn complicated and arcane skills and knowledge. You may need a new suit. The list goes on.

Its versus the HSE so im sure there Solictors are well equipped.

dublin.15

Mods, please feel free to delete this thread.Thanks

Samuel T. Cogley

dublin.15 wrote: »

I have tried 15 Solictors,none will take the case.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, you are entitled to represent yourself in the vast majority of High Court cases.

Maybe look for another solicitor. If your case is stateable and you discharge their fees upfront, you will easily find a solicitor who will assist you.

Emphasis added.

McCrack

You say its against the HSE

Can you outline broadly the nature of the case

dublin.15

McCrack wrote: »

You say its against the HSE

Can you outline broadly the nature of the case

I cant unfortunately

TomOnBoard

dublin.15 wrote: »

Is it possible to act for yourself in a high court civil action .
I cant get a Solictor or Barrister to take my case as it would be the first of its kind in Ireland,
Is it possible for me to represent myself

Yes.

FourFourRED

dublin.15 wrote: »

Mods, please feel free to delete this thread.Thanks

Mod deletion. Pls be polite here

Peregrinus

Yes, you are entitled to represent yourself.

But if 15 solicitors have declined the case, that's 15 businessmen who have turned away custom. That almost certainly means that they don't expect to be paid if they lose the case, and they don't expect to win the case. And if 15 people who know how to run cases don't expect this case to win, you should think about what that might be telling you about your case.

TomOnBoard

Sometimes (rare but it happens) ppl take cases, acting for themselves in the HC, knowing that, if they lose, they have bugger all in the way of wealth that can be called on to pay the other sides costs.

So even if a solicitor might see something as only 50:50, that could be great odds for a plaintiff who might want to take a case to get discovery, question key parties etc. It's up to the Judge to ensure such a plaintiff doesn't abuse the court or the process. However a person cannot be denied civil remedy because of a lack of sufficient wealth to take a legal action.

AndrewJRenko

TomOnBoard wrote: »

Sometimes (rare but it happens) ppl take cases, acting for themselves in the HC, knowing that, if they lose, they have bugger all in the way of wealth that can be called on to pay the other sides costs.

So even if a solicitor might see something as only 50:50, that could be great odds for a plaintiff who might want to take a case to get discovery, question key parties etc. It's up to the Judge to ensure such a plaintiff doesn't abuse the court or the process. However a person cannot be denied civil remedy because of a lack of sufficient wealth to take a legal action.

The HSE can and will look for evidence that you can cover their costs if you lose.

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The HSE can and will look for evidence that you can cover their costs if you lose.

They are not entitled to security of costs from an individual and can't force an individual to disclose his circumstances to them prior to the hearing. If they get a costs order after a hearing they can seek to enforce it. They may then be entitled to a statement of means.

Del2005

4ensic15 wrote: »

They are not entitled to security of costs from an individual and can't force an individual to disclose his circumstances to them prior to the hearing. If they get a costs order after a hearing they can seek to enforce it. They may then be entitled to a statement of means.

Should the courts be entitled to see if a person can afford to lose a case? Then they could allow the case to proceed if the person has sufficient money to cover costs or legal aid could be used if the case warrants it.

Peregrinus

Del2005 wrote: »

Should the courts be entitled to see if a person can afford to lose a case? Then they could allow the case to proceed if the person has sufficient money to cover costs or legal aid could be used if the case warrants it.

There's a constitutional right of access to the courts. You can't be prevented from exercising your right of access to the courts because you aren't rich enough to pay the defendant's costs, should you lose.

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

They are not entitled to security of costs from an individual and can't force an individual to disclose his circumstances to them prior to the hearing. If they get a costs order after a hearing they can seek to enforce it. They may then be entitled to a statement of means.

Has this changed recently? A friend was blocked from taking legal action against the HSE for this specific reason about 7 years ago

TomOnBoard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The HSE can and will look for evidence that you can cover their costs if you lose.

Absolutely not! No basis in law! How would they know what costs are likely to be before a case is even brought?

TomOnBoard

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Has this changed recently? A friend was blocked from taking legal action against the HSE for this specific reason about 7 years ago

No. No recent change in this.

Who blocked him? Was it the Courts, HSE's solicitor, his own solicitor, or someone down the pub?

Your 'friend' would need to cite the exact wording used to block him/her or else I would think that someone on his own team was trying to put him/her off taking his/her action...

crusier

It's a cartel, judges were solicitors and barristers prior to becoming judges. They don't like to see people coming into court trying to do a job that their colleagues and friends are paid to do. They certainly don't like to see Joe soaps win either against them. The legal profession have the country tied up in a knot and they control pretty much everything, including government who cannot control them. Just because your case is against the HSE does not mean you are right. If 15 solicitors won't take it on they must have good reason because if you had half a chance they would take it on.

Mod
Crusier
This forum is for legal discussion. It is not for ranting.
Pls do not post again on this thread

Samuel T. Cogley

crusier wrote: »

It's a cartel, judges were solicitors and barristers prior to becoming judges. They don't like to see people coming into court trying to do a job that their colleagues and friends are paid to do. They certainly don't like to see Joe soaps win either against them. The legal profession have the country tied up in a knot and they control pretty much everything, including government who cannot control them. Just because your case is against the HSE does not mean you are right. If 15 solicitors won't take it on they must have good reason because if you had half a chance they would take it on.

The Courts do their best to with lay litigants but you wouldn't want someone who's never been behind the wheel of a car before driving you around the M50.

wally1990

dublin.15 wrote: »

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Yes, you are entitled to represent yourself in the vast majority of High Court cases.

Maybe look for another solicitor. If your case is stateable and you discharge their fees upfront, you will easily find a solicitor who will assist you.

I have tried 15 Solictors,none will take the case.

This is a bad sign
Is it because it is risky and they is no previous test cases ?

Mrcaramelchoc

Peregrinus wrote: »

Yes, you are entitled to represent yourself.

But if 15 solicitors have declined the case, that's 15 businessmen who have turned away custom. That almost certainly means that they don't expect to be paid if they lose the case, and they don't expect to win the case. And if 15 people who know how to run cases don't expect this case to win, you should think about what that might be telling you about your case.

So from the above could i gather that a solicitor will not take a case unless they are reasonably sure of a good outcome?

Samuel T. Cogley

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

So from the above could i gather that a solicitor will not take a case unless they are reasonably sure of a good outcome?

Probably more an issue of being paid.

Claw Hammer

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

So from the above could i gather that a solicitor will not take a case unless they are reasonably sure of a good outcome?

There certainly won't take "a no foal no fee" case unless there are some reasonable prospect of success.

Peregrinus

Mrcaramelchoc wrote: »

So from the above could i gather that a solicitor will not take a case unless they are reasonably sure of a good outcome?

They won't take a case unless they are reasonably sure of being paid. If your proposal for paying them is "win the case, and we'll get an award of costs from the other side, and I'll make up any shortfall out of the award of damages!" then that translates into not taking the case unless they are confident its a winning case.

AndrewJRenko

TomOnBoard wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Has this changed recently? A friend was blocked from taking legal action against the HSE for this specific reason about 7 years ago

No. No recent change in this.

Who blocked him? Was it the Courts, HSE's solicitor, his own solicitor, or someone down the pub?

Your 'friend' would need to cite the exact wording used to block him/her or else I would think that someone on his own team was trying to put him/her off taking his/her action...

"Security of costs" was the issue

https://www.matheson.com/news-and-insights/article/applicable-test-for-ordering-of-security-for-costs

Claw Hammer

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"Security of costs" was the issue

https://www.matheson.com/news-and-insights/article/applicable-test-for-ordering-of-security-for-costs

That case involved a company. Can't happen with an individual.

AndrewJRenko

Claw Hammer wrote: »

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

"Security of costs" was the issue

https://www.matheson.com/news-and-insights/article/applicable-test-for-ordering-of-security-for-costs

That case involved a company. Can't happen with an individual.

Yeah, it was a company in my friend's case - a small NGO to be more specific

Robbo

Claw Hammer wrote: »

That case involved a company. Can't happen with an individual.

Order 29 RSC.

Security for costs can be sought if the plaintiff is resident outside the jurisdiction. There are other exceptions but I have a lunch to eat, Farrell v. Bank of Ireland would be worth reading.

Claw Hammer

Robbo wrote: »

Order 29 RSC.

Security for costs can be sought if the plaintiff is resident outside the jurisdiction. There are other exceptions but I have a lunch to eat, Farrell v. Bank of Ireland would be worth reading.

Farrell was an appeal.

dublin.15

I have found a solictor to take the case.

nuac

Mod
Good luck, Dublin 15
Leaving thread open for now in case of any other general comments re lay litigation

tommyit

Dublin 15
Check out the solicitor he could be just be talking advantage of the situation

Claw Hammer

tommyit wrote: »

Dublin 15
Check out the solicitor he could be just be talking advantage of the situation

What do you mean "taking advantage". Solicitors prepared to go on the hazard in the hope of getting a fee in the end. All is doing is availing of a business opportunity.