Representing oneself in High Court Civil case

dollydoo30

Evening All.

We have found ourselves in a predicament, we have a claim against us a personal claim and also against a now dissolved company I owned.

We have been told it could be 20 k to just fight the case, solicitor has said they reckon we will win, as case is fairly shoddy claims case.

The thing is we really do not have that sort of money to pay out, we are struggling as it is to keep our heads above water and my husband has fairly hefty medical bills because of an ongoing health problem, so between that and trying to make a living every day we really can't justify paying that money just to win the case.

The plaintiff is also taking a number of other parties to court also, presumably hoping to be paid by these. Our insurance didn't cover us for other reasons .

We can't sleep at night worrying.

Has anyone any advice, would we be torn to shreds if we represented ourselves?

Clutching at straws here now.

Dial Hard

I thought you had to have a barrister for the High Court?

Telly

Isn’t the high court 75k and up?

dollydoo30

Yes our solicitor told us we would be needing a barrister because its the high court. Told us if the plaintiff did win which he doubts , they could get awarded maybe 60k at the most, broken limb.

Sorry trying not to say too much as its fairly obvious if I do.

Telly

Well 20k is bettter than 60k. So the choice is yours really. It’s a horrible situation but one you can’t really get out of? My heart goes out to you.

locum-motion

Telly wrote: »

Isn’t the high court 75k and up?

I think the OP's 20k referred to the legal costs, not the amount of the claim against them.

dollydoo30

Yes sorry legal costs would be circ 20k but when we asked solicitor about if we won, then could we reclaim the cost from the other party he said well they are only a student so you would never see the money. How can that be fair. I suppose life isn't fair but its just one thing after another, working our asses off ( self employed ) to keep our heads above water , to basically throw away that sort of money just to defend the case.

Thanks for the replies folks.

dollydoo30

Have thought about burying my head in the sand and not turning up but then I know we would be proper shagged.

Telly

locum-motion wrote: »

I think the OP's 20k referred to the legal costs, not the amount of the claim against them.

Yeah that’s what I meant. It’s better to pay the 20k and have someone fight your side. Than have no one and possibly have to pay out 60k compo

Credit Checker Moose

Dial Hard wrote: »

I thought you had to have a barrister for the High Court?

You have the right to represent yourself in any court. Not advisable in most cases though.

unattendedbag

Telly wrote: »

Yeah that’s what I meant. It’s better to pay the 20k and have someone fight your side. Than have no one and possibly have to pay out 60k compo

Would it not be possible to get costs awarded against other party if you win?

4ensic15

unattendedbag wrote: »

Would it not be possible to get costs awarded against other party if you win?

Yes. The point is how do you collect the costs?

AndrewJRenko

4ensic15 wrote: »

Yes. The point is how do you collect the costs?

Do they not have to lodge some kind of bond to cover this situation before proceeding with their case?

thebiglad

Did the company not have Public and Employee Insurance? If so just pass the matter to the insurer and let them handle it for you.

NUTLEY BOY

Hard to give a definitive view without more particulars of what happened so these are general observations.

Civil litigation is conducted within sets of rules about practices and procedures. Tripping up on some of these may well land you with a liability.
Therefore, it is unwise to conduct this type of litigation personally.
The estimated legal defence costs are worth the "risk" to minimise the chances of a finding against you. Otherwise, you might face a decree for the damages and the plaintiff's legal costs to which you add your own costs.

An additional complication is that there appears to be several co-defendants. That creates more technical convolutions in it's own right as well as different tactical considerations. Having a solicitor would help you through these matters.

If a plaintiff obtains a judgment against all defendants they can levy it in full against one defendant. However, that defendant will have rights in turn against the other defendants by way of an action for indemnity and contribution. So you will face the legal issues one way or another.

Your solicitor might indicate to the other defendants that you have no indemnifier behind you - you have no operative insurance - so they might consider indemnifying you and releasing you financially from the litigation. This can happen for a variety of reasons which depend on the detailed merits of the case and the exposures of the joint defendants.

Incidentally, if you got a good run and defeated the plaintiff's claim you would seek an order for costs as a successful defendant. The plaintiff will probably seek an order over - for your costs - against any unsuccessful defendants and that might increase your chance of getting your costs back if the others have funds.

Generally, the position with costs is that "they follow the event". There is no absolute entitlement to costs as a successful litigant. It is the trial judge who decides what orders, if any, they will make on costs.

Finally, from the above you will probably appreciate that the "head down and it will go away" approach is the road to perdition !

NUTLEY BOY

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do they not have to lodge some kind of bond to cover this situation before proceeding with their case?

Only in certain circumstances and in the form of security for costs.
Otherwise, not required in normal litigation.

NUTLEY BOY

thebiglad wrote: »

Did the company not have Public and Employee Insurance? If so just pass the matter to the insurer and let them handle it for you.

OP says no operative insurance cover. That is what makes this so perilous.

4ensic15

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Do they not have to lodge some kind of bond to cover this situation before proceeding with their case?

No.

Discodog

Years ago I represented myself in an English Court & won. The Judge kept intervening & said that he had a duty to ensure that I was treated fairly. Is this the case in Irish Courts ?

Credit Checker Moose

Litigants in person tend to not get the same latitude in the Irish courts. They are barely tolerated.

ohnonotgmail

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Litigants in person tend to not get the same latitude in the courts. They are barely tolerated.

The freeman crowd seem to have got a ridiculous amount of latitude from the courts.

You mentioned that it is a previous company that is being sued. Can they be represented by a lay litigant?

4ensic15

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The freeman crowd seem to have got a ridiculous amount of latitude from the courts.

You mentioned that it is a previous company that is being sued. Can they be represented by a lay litigant?

A company can't be represented by a lay litigant. The company being sued is dissolved but there is also a personal claim against the o/p.

Discodog

Do Irish Courts allow a McKenzie friend ?

4ensic15

Discodog wrote: »

Do Irish Courts allow a McKenzie friend ?

A McKenzie friend does not have a right of audience. A judge might allow one from time to time but generally, they are not allowed.

Peregrinus

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Litigants in person tend to not get the same latitude in the Irish courts. They are barely tolerated.

Not true, in my experience. A judge will give them a great deal of time and leeway, but won't turn himself into an advocate for them, and won't give them legal advice. "Being treated fairly", as discodog puts it, isn't going to protect you from the consequences of being ignorant of the legal issues being argued, and it can't prevent all the disadvantage that might result from being unaware of the court's processes.

In general people have more success representing themselves in the lower courts, where processes are simpler and the other side is throwing less resources into the case, than they do in the High Court.