Judge orders taxi driver's injury claim that 'misled solicitors and wasted court time

sexmag

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/judge-orders-taxi-drivers-injury-claim-that-misled-solicitors-and-wasted-court-time-be-considered-for-prosecution-38342279.html

I have to say, I am actually delighted, about time, now if anything comes of it is a different story but a step in the right direction to help bring down spiraling insurance costs and fake claims

ohnonotgmail

Barrister John Nolan, counsel for Nwachukwu, told Judge O’ Donohoe that he would not have taken on his client’s case had he been aware of the information that had come to light during the trial.

He had the same information available to him as the defendants barrister. This information did not just magically come to light during the trial. Unless he is claiming that the solicitor that instructed him did not give him the information.

sexmag

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He had the same information available to him as the defendants barrister. This information did not just magically come to light during the trial. Unless he is claiming that the solicitor that instructed him did not give him the information.

I am assuming no due diligence was done by him which is his own issue, probably thought this was a done deal which again is one of the issues with cases like this

tayto lover

Should be deported too.
Coming into Ireland and trying to buck the system is deserving of a Deportation Order in my view.

Robbo

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He had the same information available to him as the defendants barrister. This information did not just magically come to light during the trial. Unless he is claiming that the solicitor that instructed him did not give him the information.

It's entirely likely that the information came to light as a result of the cross examination of the plaintiff.

Robbo

tayto lover wrote: »

Should be deported too.
Coming into Ireland and trying to buck the system is deserving of a Deportation Order in my view.

Moderation: User received an infraction for this post in breach of the Charter.

sexmag

Robbo wrote: »

It's entirely likely that the information came to light as a result of the cross examination of the plaintiff.

Wouldnt their client have to have provided all the information to their solicitor as well as the defense, how would it have only come to light during the examination?

mrsbeebee

sexmag wrote: »

Wouldnt their client have to have provided all the information to their solicitor as well as the defense, how would it have only come to light during the examination?

If the invoices were given before he had a solicitor on record (often happens in the early stages of the claim), the defence doesn't have to to share them. If the defence feel they have good evidence to ambush a suspected fraudulent claimant at trial, they don't share that. A lot of the successful results come about as a result of this and in some cases also depend on how the plaintiff reacts when it's all put to them.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He had the same information available to him as the defendants barrister. This information did not just magically come to light during the trial. Unless he is claiming that the solicitor that instructed him did not give him the information.

A solicitor or barrister won't necessarily view the details of evidence.

If a client says here is 10 invoices to support my €1,700 claim they will often just accept it rather than actually checking.

The person paying them doesn't pay them to check the evidence that the client supplies.

ohnonotgmail

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

A solicitor or barrister won't necessarily view the details of evidence.

If a client says here is 10 invoices to support my €1,700 claim they will often just accept it rather than actually checking.

The person paying them doesn't pay them to check the evidence that the client supplies.

well perhaps they should to stop themselves like complete tits and wasting the courts time.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

well perhaps they should to stop themselves like complete tits and wasting the courts time.

I'll agree a level of blame falls on the solicitor and barrister in this case and that yes he should have checked.

However in many case they just accept that the evidence is what was requested.

I'm an accountant. One of our clients is going through a divorce. His solicitor forwarded a request to us, one part of it was essentially a request for 16,000 invoices from the client's company records. We didn't deal with it and forwarded it on to the client's company's bookkeeper.

I know for a fact that our client's solicitor didn't look at the invoices once. If she did I'm not sure what value would have been gained except for an assurance that the invoices were as described. Sometimes though you have to trust your client and their system as there is no money to doubt them.

In the case linked though given that the volume of invoices is ralatively low I do wonder if they should have checked.

ohnonotgmail

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

I'll agree a level of blame falls on the solicitor and barrister in this case and that yes he should have checked.

However in many case they just accept that the evidence is what was requested.

I'm an accountant. One of our clients is going through a divorce. His solicitor forwarded a request to us, one part of it was essentially a request for 16,000 invoices from the client's company records. We didn't deal with it and forwarded it on to the client's company's bookkeeper.

I know for a fact that our client's solicitor didn't look at the invoices once. If she did I'm not sure what value would have been gained except for an assurance that the invoices were as described. Sometimes though you have to trust your client and their system as there is no money to doubt them.

In the case linked though given that the volume of invoices is ralatively low I do wonder if they should have checked.

Just for the sake of his own business he should have checked. Because he didnt check he has spent time in court that he will not be paid for.

hullaballoo

I think the above is likely the case here. The vouching documentation for the out-of-pocket part of the claim were just bundled together and handed over without scrutiny because why would you do anything else?

If you do not have reason to believe your client is perpetrating a fraud, then you might make the "mistake" of not checking. On the other hand, if you do believe your client is perpetrating a fraud, then you would not be taking the case.

Very often, these vouchers are not seen before the hearing day at all. Only very organised solicitors will have put pressure on the client to provide the vouchers in advance. Most will say "make sure you bring vouching documents/receipts for your out-of-pocket expenses on the day" and that will be it. Nothing wrong with that except when it transpires your client is trying it on.

CIARAN_BOYLE

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Just for the sake of his own business he should have checked. Because he didnt check he has spent time in court that he will not be paid for.

He will still issue a bill. Whether this man will pay the bill I don't know but a bill will still be issued.

ohnonotgmail

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

He will still issue a bill. Whether this man will pay the bill I don't know but a bill will still be issued.

Oh i'm sure he will issue a bill. It will never be paid.