Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Lying on an affidavit is perjury and "should" be treated as such.
Unfortunately in Ireland the legal profession is getting to play both sides in insurance litigation.
Quite often the case is settled solely on the information submitted when case is initially raised.
The affidavit and supporting evidence are reviewed by the respondent and a decision is made on the cost of defending versus the cost of an immediate/negotiated settlement.
If settling is cheaper than defending, that's usually the path taken unless the defendant has strong evidence to counter the claim made.
That in our current system, one can make any exaggerated claim in the pleading and affidavit submitted, and then recant those statements when/if the defendant questions them in the pleadings means that a large number of cases are raised with no real grounds, and settles because it's cheaper than a robust decent.
An affidavit is a statement of fact and lying on one is subject to sanction, yet we allow those documents to be revised on a best recollection basis with no sanction ever implemented.
Where this becomes a major issue, is when claims are submitted solely with the intent of gaming the system.
Bailey's claim was submitted to a court with a 60k limit, in the hope of forcing a quick settlement without progress past pleading documents.
The Dean were meant to settle at @1/3 of the maximum amount allowable
Not have the temerity to rebutt and defend the claim.
The Dean have done the State a huge service in defending this matter and inraising serious ethical questions regarding Madigan's behaviour which if my own hunch is right in this instance should lead to her sacking as her attempt to game the system is worse than Bailey's behaviour.
It is very likely IMO that Bailey was advised she had an open and shut case, that Madigan was the source of that advice and that in advising Bailey, that Madigan also expected both of their political positions to both strengthen the appearance of honesty in their case and to drive the Dean to settle rather than defend.0 -
-
-
-
-
Indeed, were the legal firms not so keen to push for ever bigger paydays some people could be headed off. How is Madigan complicit here? She doesn't work for them.Lying on an affidavit is perjury and "should" be treated as such.
Unfortunately in Ireland the legal profession is getting to play both sides in insurance litigation.
Quite often the case is settled solely on the information submitted when case is initially raised.
The affidavit and supporting evidence are reviewed by the respondent and a decision is made on the cost of defending versus the cost of an immediate/negotiated settlement.
If settling is cheaper than defending, that's usually the path taken unless the defendant has strong evidence to counter the claim made.
That in our current system, one can make any exaggerated claim in the pleading and affidavit submitted, and then recant those statements when/if the defendant questions them in the pleadings means that a large number of cases are raised with no real grounds, and settles because it's cheaper than a robust decent.
An affidavit is a statement of fact and lying on one is subject to sanction, yet we allow those documents to be revised on a best recollection basis with no sanction ever implemented.
Where this becomes a major issue, is when claims are submitted solely with the intent of gaming the system.
Bailey's claim was submitted to a court with a 60k limit, in the hope of forcing a quick settlement without progress past pleading documents.
The Dean were meant to settle at @1/3 of the maximum amount allowable
Not have the temerity to rebutt and defend the claim.
The Dean have done the State a huge service in defending this matter and inraising serious ethical questions regarding Madigan's behaviour which if my own hunch is right in this instance should lead to her sacking as her attempt to game the system is worse than Bailey's behaviour.
It is very likely IMO that Bailey was advised she had an open and shut case, that Madigan was the source of that advice and that in advising Bailey, that Madigan also expected both of their political positions to both strengthen the appearance of honesty in their case and to drive the Dean to settle rather than defend.0 -
Advertisement
-
Lying on an affidavit is perjury and "should" be treated as such.
Unfortunately in Ireland the legal profession is getting to play both sides in insurance litigation.
Quite often the case is settled solely on the information submitted when case is initially raised.
The affidavit and supporting evidence are reviewed by the respondent and a decision is made on the cost of defending versus the cost of an immediate/negotiated settlement.
If settling is cheaper than defending, that's usually the path taken unless the defendant has strong evidence to counter the claim made.
That in our current system, one can make any exaggerated claim in the pleading and affidavit submitted, and then recant those statements when/if the defendant questions them in the pleadings means that a large number of cases are raised with no real grounds, and settles because it's cheaper than a robust decent.
An affidavit is a statement of fact and lying on one is subject to sanction, yet we allow those documents to be revised on a best recollection basis with no sanction ever implemented.
Where this becomes a major issue, is when claims are submitted solely with the intent of gaming the system.
Bailey's claim was submitted to a court with a 60k limit, in the hope of forcing a quick settlement without progress past pleading documents.
The Dean were meant to settle at @1/3 of the maximum amount allowable
Not have the temerity to rebutt and defend the claim.
The Dean have done the State a huge service in defending this matter and inraising serious ethical questions regarding Madigan's behaviour which if my own hunch is right in this instance should lead to her sacking as her attempt to game the system is worse than Bailey's behaviour.
It is very likely IMO that Bailey was advised she had an open and shut case, that Madigan was the source of that advice and that in advising Bailey, that Madigan also expected both of their political positions to both strengthen the appearance of honesty in their case and to drive the Dean to settle rather than defend.
I'm glad you put the word "should" in quotes.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement