Can someone be bankrupted by litigation

Shauny2010

.

Eric Cartman

I would imagine so. Are you looking to do this to somebody or afraid of it happening to you (hypothetically) may help steer more advice.

Shauny2010

I want to do this to someone but am unsure if this has been done before. I have a case I can bring against them, but I may want to keep bringing cases until they are truly bankrupt

godtabh

Shauny2010 wrote: »

I want to do this to someone but am unsure if this has been done before. I have a case I can bring against them, but I may want to keep bringing cases until they are truly bankrupt

How will you afford to bankrupt them?

Fann Linn

Shauny2010 wrote: »

I want to do this to someone but am unsure if this has been done before. I have a case I can bring against them, but I may want to keep bringing cases until they are truly bankrupt

What if you lose your case?

coylemj

Shauny2010 wrote: »

I have a case I can bring against them, but I may want to keep bringing cases until they are truly bankrupt

How does 'a case' become 'cases' (plural).

If you attempt to continually stack up one frivolous case on top of the other, it might be you that ends up bankrupt.

Or you could become the subject of an Isaac Wunder order i.e. identified as a vexatious litigant in which case the legal system will put roadblocks in front of you.

L1011

Shauny2010 wrote: »

I want to do this to someone but am unsure if this has been done before. I have a case I can bring against them, but I may want to keep bringing cases until they are truly bankrupt

Can you afford all the legal costs from your side, as there won't be anything coming from the other side?

What happens if you win in a lower court and they don't appeal?

lawred2

Shauny2010 wrote: »

I want to do this to someone but am unsure if this has been done before. I have a case I can bring against them, but I may want to keep bringing cases until they are truly bankrupt

I'm near fully confident that you haven't thought this through

kirving

Whats the case about? In general of course.

L1011

Shauny2010 wrote: »

My thinking is that with legal costs on adding on a daily base they would eventually not be able to afford to contest the case

As do yours. How are you funding this? Legal aid does not fund flights of fancy.

Eric Cartman

working for free as a child.... as a result of this how much money do you think you would have deserved to be paid at the time for the under 18 unskilled working rate ?

Shauny2010

Eric Cartman wrote: »

working for free as a child.... as a result of this how much money do you think you would have deserved to be paid at the time for the under 18 unskilled working rate ?

As much as possible, as I suffered loss of opportunity too which took me years to recover from

Eric Cartman

and would the other persons entire net worth be less than the disposable income you would have liquid available to you in fiat currency right now to lose on this case ?

also how would you feel if you lost and they got all their costs back ?

L1011

Shauny2010 wrote: »

As do yours. How are you funding this? Legal aid does not fund flights of fancy.

My own wealth, I'm not bothered how much it costs me as long as I can inflict equal costs.

And you have significantly more than the other party has? As you'll need top-notch legal professionals to pursue something like this.#

Are you 100% tax clear on your own wealth, as its likely anyone at risk would bring down every potential option they could?

Victor

Shauny2010 wrote: »

As the title says, is it possible to bring someone to the high court, then drag out the case long enough to bankrupt them?

There are two major cost elements in going to court:
* The effort to put the case together. It is likely this cost would be approximately constant, regardless of time involved.
* The effort in running the case in court. This is usually time based, but with some fixed and some variable costs.

If time and costs are simply wasted by a plaintiff, e.g. making long, waffling speeches on moot points, then they won't be awarded those costs. I suspect the defendant would get their costs from the plaintiff for such instances, but I'll have to defer to the lawyers on this point.

Eric Cartman

Shauny2010 wrote: »

Yes

but if they won all their costs back I would be really p1ssed. I would rather keep them in court as long as possible, then it wouldn't matter if I lost just as long as they don't get costs.
And I would rinse and repeat the process again if needed

In order for your court case to keep going, you'd need a strong case with a questionable element of doubt / a continued need for evidence / expert witnesses or something else that takes time to procure and keep the carousel going.

I don't know what work you did as a child, but if it was stacking shelves in an uncles convenience store on a weekend then you haven't a hope of pulling this off, however were you say writing computer code for something that went on to generate revenue in the millions then perhaps you could have a case.

That said, if it was writing computer code that made serious money , and you have disposable income that surpasses that persons entire net worth then I'm wondering why bother.

I was told something years ago and it really holds, if somebody ever screws you over with money, the best thing you can do is pull up at their house in a car and a suit they could never afford and tell them to go f themselves. Use that hate to drive you, make them regret their own lives.

Del2005

Shauny2010 wrote: »

Yes

but if they won all their costs back I would be really p1ssed. I would rather keep them in court as long as possible, then it wouldn't matter if I lost just as long as they don't get costs.
And I would rinse and repeat the process again if needed

The winner is usually awarded costs. So the more you appeal the bigger the bill for you.

BTW I think most people were used as child labour here until relatively recently, I definitely was as were most of my friends. I can't see what type of claim that you have that won't be statute barred.

Pa8301

The OP's query read likes what The Count of Monte Cristo might have ended up as if Alexandre Dumas had zero imagination.

endacl

Have you considered applying for a 'Let it Go' order, provided for under the Life's Too Short Act, 2001?

coylemj

Shauny2010 wrote: »

Ok, so from what I can gather it would be unlikely to drag the case on indefinitely without putting the case in jeopardy. I can still hope to inflict some financial damage.

What sort of redress will you be seeking when you go to court?

What if the other guy fails to show up and doesn't send a lawyer to represent him?

Eric Cartman

Shauny2010 wrote: »

Ok, so from what I can gather it would be unlikely to drag the case on indefinitely without putting the case in jeopardy. I can still hope to inflict some financial damage.

does this person know you're even still pissed off about it ?
how much are we really talking here, like how much did this person profit in an actual euro amount (estimated) off all of the work you did ?

like is this a personal principal kind of spat where you're talking about 500 quid or did this person profit upwards of 10k off the work you did ?

Peregrinus

This generally works in reverse; if you sue a big corporation with deep pockets they can string it out and run up costs for both of you on the thinking that they have more money than you do, and you'll run out of money first, or simply abandon the case as costing more to pursue than is likely to be recovered.

It's much harder to do this successfully as the plaintiff. Remember, this works for defendants precisely becuase being a constantly aggressive plaintiff consumes large amounts of money, time and energy. If you're running numerous, mostly baseless, cases they can pursue relatively cheap strategies in response, arguing that your numerous proceedings are an abuse of process designed to harass them and asking the court either to strike them out or to direct you to consolidate them into one case, for instance.

In general, plaintiffs can run out of money to pursue cases, but the financial risk to defendants is more usually not the cost of defending, but the risk of losing the case and having an enormous award of damages against them. So if you really want to bankrupt them the better strategy is to sue them successfully, rather than to string out the case so that you never get judgment.

Losty Dublin

Shauny2010 wrote: »

Yes

but if they won all their costs back I would be really p1ssed. I would rather keep them in court as long as possible, then it wouldn't matter if I lost just as long as they don't get costs.
And I would rinse and repeat the process again if needed

Some of the learned legal pro's on here may be able to clarify this but having an award of costs doesn't essentially mean that you will get back everything that you spent on the case.

Twenty Grand

I wonder if someone found this thread and discovered your identity, then would it go against you in court?

Youre planning in bankrupting someone through frivilious court cases.

You've got about 700 posts on this site, so someone with a bit of time should be able to out the pieces together.

drunkmonkey

If your going to sue anyone make it Francesca McDonagh, bet she owes you more than your uncle for grass cutting fees.

IncognitoMan

:pac::pac::pac:

nuac

Mod
The thread title seems to have been deleted here.
As far as i remember it was whether you could bankrupt someont thru litigation.
I have reinstated it to that effect.
However there are some replies and comments on threat which indicate that that would not be a possibility.
If you want to maintain this thread you need to refute those arguments.
If not you should suggest deletion of the thread.
Pls decide and let us know by 10 a.m. tomorrow Tuesday

Just to end this utter farce:

1. If you have 10 issues with a person and you bring a case against them only suing them for 1 then you can lose the right to sue them for the other 9.

2. If you lose the other side can get their costs and if you don’t pay them then they can bankrupt you. An order for costs is the same as a judgment for money.

3. If you abandon your case and withdraw it the other side automatically get their costs so you can’t simply “rinse and repeat”.

4. If you bring a case, withdraw it or have it struck out before determination and then bring the same case again the other side can force you to stop the proceedings until you pay the costs of the last proceedings.

5. Stop trying to be clever, most people who try to be clever soon find out they’re not smart enough.