Legal costs

abff

There was a story in the paper today about a Traveller family that was awarded a total of €33,000 in damages after being refused service in a pub in 2016. Without going into the specifics of the case, there was a paragraph at the end of the story that absolutely horrified me.

"The judge told Mr D’Arcy he would award Circuit Court costs in each case against The Orchard Inn which is likely to amount to more than €100,000 for all parties costs including defendants costs."

How does this make any kind of sense?

ILoveYourVibes

That's about average when costs are awarded.

Once you get regular work as as a lawyer you are rolling in it. Its just getting the regular work.

I know that place.

Or rather i knew that place ...its possible it will close now.

topper75

So tired hauling my ass into work this morning. This traveller thing. How do I become one?

Johnny Sausage

topper75 wrote: »

So tired hauling my ass into work this morning. This traveller thing. How do I become one?

culture, boss

ILoveYourVibes

In fairness no one should be denied a drink on the basis of their background. Although not sure the experience is worth 30k.

Its not like we treat travelers well in this country though.

Its probably more preventative as a measure. The judge saying to businesses 'You better have another very good reason that you can actually prove to deny people service other than they are travelers next time'.

Padre_Pio

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

In fairness no one should be denied a drink on the basis of their background. Although not sure the experience is worth 30k.

Its not like we treat travelers well in this country though.

Its probably more preventative as a measure. The judge saying to businesses 'You better have another very good reason that you can actually prove to deny people service other than they are travelers next time'.

It's a fairly thing in areas where travellers are prevalent. Most of the pubs in around Boyle have a "Private Party" sign permanently up as an excuse to remove travellers from the pub.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Its not like we treat travelers well in this country though.

They don’t treat us very well either.

ILoveYourVibes

ReginaldSmythV wrote: »

They don’t treat us very well either.

Some don't no doubt.

We both need to learn to live together.

smelly sock

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

In fairness no one should be denied a drink on the basis of their background. Although not sure the experience is worth 30k.

Its not like we treat travelers well in this country though.

Its probably more preventative as a measure. The judge saying to businesses 'You better have another very good reason that you can actually prove to deny people service other than they are travelers next time'.

Booked out.

Every restaurant would be encouraged to have a policy on paper saying that bookings must be made in advance or you will not gain entry. It's that simple.

ILoveYourVibes

smelly sock wrote: »

Booked out.

Every restaurant would be encouraged to have a policy on paper saying that bookings must be made in advance or you will gain entry. It's that simple.

Please no..i don't want to have to book everywhere in advance thanks.

smelly sock

Berties_Horse wrote: »

Live in a ditch next to a motorway exit for two generations, claim ethnicity. You needn't have to work again, privileges include being bumped to the top of social housing queue & immunity from the judiciary.

And have a much lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality. Little or no educational prospects and much higher rate of serious illness.

Sounds great.

Johnny Sausage

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Its not like we treat travelers well in this country though.

Margaret Cash receives more in benefits than a lot of people do for working full time

her and her ilk get treated fine

but i suppose you are too "woke" to realise this

Deebles McBeebles

smelly sock wrote: »

And have a much lower life expectancy and higher infant mortality. Little or no educational prospects and much higher rate of serious illness.

Sounds great.

Out of curiousity, who's fault do you reckon all of those things are?

Prepare for thread movement to CA in 3.....2.....

smelly sock

Deebles McBeebles wrote: »

Out of curiousity, who's fault do you reckon all of those things are?

Prepare for thread movement to CA in 3.....2.....

I don't think people choose to be travellers. They are usually born into it.

I'm going to see Travellers are to blame first and foremost and then society as a whole are also to blame though.

ILoveYourVibes

Johnny Sausage wrote: »

Margaret Cash receives more in benefits than a lot of people do for working full time

her and her ilk get treated fine

but i suppose you are too "woke" to realise this

I don't suppose to be any more ''woke'' than yourself.

Its ok that we have different opinions on travelers.

I am not going to make fun of you because you don't like them.

I have known people from lots of different ethnic backgrounds and economic backgrounds but i haven't actually ever really known a traveler.

And since i don't know ...i need to learn before i can judge.

I don't know much about travelers. No one ever taught me about them in school nor got a traveler into talk to us about their people.

Might have been a good idea if they did that in schools hello Irish education dept I am talking to you.

So I am precisely the OPPOSITE of what you say ....i am asleep ...i don't think about travelers. No traveler has come to wake me yet.

SeaFields

Having read the article in the Irish Examiner on the issue it appears the bar manager did himself and his employer no favours in his evidence to the court.

ILoveYourVibes

SeaFields wrote: »

Having read the article in the Irish Examiner on the issue it appears the bar manager did himself and his employer no favours in his evidence to the court.

nods

“these people”

Johnny Sausage

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I don't suppose to be any more ''woke'' than yourself.

Its ok that we have different opinions on travelers.

I am not going to make fun of you because you don't like them.

I have known people from lots of different ethnic backgrounds and economic backgrounds but i haven't actually ever really known a traveler.

And since i don't know ...i need to learn before i can judge.

I don't know much about travelers. No one ever taught me about them in school nor got a traveler into talk to us about their people.

Might have been a good idea if they did that in schools hello Irish education dept I am talking to you.

So I am precisely the OPPOSITE of what you say ....i am asleep ...i don't think about travelers. No traveler has come to wake me yet.

when is the hardback version of this post coming out

ILoveYourVibes

Berties_Horse wrote: »

At least you have the stones to own up, compared to others who pontificate from a height.

It doesn't really take any stones to admit you don't know about travelers or haven't met one. I just haven't.

Shrug ...i can't know if i think something is good or bad unless i have approached it with an impartial mind and gotten to know about it and its people or tribe etc.

However I already know that discrimination is bad. Discernment is good. Discrimination bad.

when is the hardback version of this post coming out

Wutever. Whenever ....ideas percolate. They need time to become coffee.

ollkiller

The decision by the judge was totally correct. They went as a family for sunday lunch, were refused admission because they were traveller's. It's against the law to do that. By all accounts from people who know them they are a nice family. Case closed.

ILoveYourVibes

ollkiller wrote: »

The decision by the judge was totally correct. They went as a family for sunday lunch, were refused admission because they were traveller's. It's against the law to do that. By all accounts from people who know them they are a nice family. Case closed.

Also the pub was aware of that. Someone vouched for them. A priest.

ollkiller

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Also the pub was aware of that. Someone vouched for them. A priest.

This is it. From the story the pub had hassle with members of that community previously. So i can see where they are coming from. But we don't bar white Irish people when 1 of them cause trouble. If the bar had used some common sense they would not have been in this situation. There's a big difference between a family turning up for lunch and a group of males who are drunk.

bladespin

Not quite sure the point of the thread but it reads like a pretty straightforward case of discrimination and was dealt with accordingly, costs were awarded (as they should be in a blatant case), traveler or not it reads like it was a fair outcome.

ILoveYourVibes

ollkiller wrote: »

This is it. From the story the pub had hassle with members of that community previously. So i can see where they are coming from. But we don't bar white Irish people when 1 of them cause trouble. If the bar had used some common sense they would not have been in this situation. There's a big difference between a family turning up for lunch and a group of males who are drunk.

By all accounts it was not the family themselves as individuals who were the issue but the fact that the person in charge allowed their previous experience with other individuals to blind them into making unwise decisions.

Obv if someone acts dodgy ...**** em.

But if you have so much evidence to support the good character of a family and you still refuse then you are burying your head in the sand.

abff

Actually, as you might surmise from the thread title, I was more concerned about the insane level of legal costs than I was about the rights and wrongs of this particular case. It's that level of costs that causes so many insurance claims to be settled and that fosters a culture of insurance fraud.

I had only one comment on this particular issue and it was along the lines of 'that's par for the course'. While I don't disagree with that comment, what I would like to know is why we have allowed this level of costs to be considered normal and what, if anything, might be done to change this.

Odyssey 2005

topper75 wrote: »

So tired hauling my ass into work this morning. This traveller thing. How do I become one?

Buy a trailer

bladespin

abff wrote: »

Actually, as you might surmise from the thread title, I was more concerned about the insane level of legal costs than I was about the rights and wrongs of this particular case. It's that level of costs that causes so many insurance claims to be settled and that fosters a culture of insurance fraud.

I had only one comment on this particular issue and it was along the lines of 'that's par for the course'. While I don't disagree with that comment, what I would like to know is why we have allowed this level of costs to be considered normal and what, if anything, might be done to change this.

How many hours work (on both sides) got us to this final decision, not to mention the costs of the court and staff itself? These are highly paid professionals who charge by the minute btw. Remember there's the solicitor, their staff, at least one barrister, judge etc etc. €100k is cheap, it must not have taken long.

FishOnABike

bladespin wrote: »

How many hours work (on both sides) got us to this final decision, not to mention the costs of the court and staff itself? These are highly paid professionals who charge by the minute btw. Remember there's the solicitor, their staff, at least one barrister, judge etc etc. €100k is cheap, it must not have taken long.

It does raise the question who is benefiting the most when it costs €100,000 in legal fees to fight what seems to have been a relatively straightforward discrimination case worth €15000, €6000 and €6000 to the three applicants, and this is only the legal costs for the applicant and respondents solicitors and barristers in the Circuit Court. The Judge, court staff and court infrastructure are paid by the taxpayer and are not included in the €100,000 costs.

It does seem strange that costs for all three applicants was awarded as both awards less than €15000 could have been made in the district court.

What it does highlight though is that the cost of legal action effectively excludes access to the law for the vast majority of the population and the law acts more to the benefit of the legal profession than the population it is supposed to serve. This is not a good thing.