Apple to small claims

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122714064#Comment_122714064

Business to Business. His company took the case again Apple, so consumer protection laws do not apply.

Firblog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122714051#Comment_122714051

Well I (the ltd company) got a full refund from Dell for a laptop that failed after 14 months, I would have been happy with a repair but they offered full refund in settlement once I started the case against them.

Did you ever try to take Powercity to the small claims yourself? A notice from the courts service tends to make people sit up and take notice.

caviardreams

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122711448#Comment_122711448

It's not like it is just 15 mins of the solicitor's time though

I'd say you are looking at 1k minimum, if you manage to get somebody to take it on

Firblog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122715299#Comment_122715299

It is a very simple case, and all the solicitor has to do is ask me a few questions, and opposing solicitor will do the same.

When was it bought? When did it fail? Was it accidental damage? (Nope, as per Apple Store report)Why did it fail?(apple didn't say), Was it in warranty? Nope. Please tell me why you believe Apple should refund you the price paid - why are they responsible..

Judge makes up her mind and comes to a decision.

I've spent more time than that'll take doing up my will in a solicitors office, with 2 solicitors there, didn't cost €200.

Rocket_GD

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122715486#Comment_122715486

It won’t take them 15 mins, the case itself may take 15 mins but they have travelling time, you could be waiting a couple of hours for your case to be called despite being given an allotted time.
You can be guaranteed they’ll want a meeting before the court, they’ll charge you for that, researching fees, even photocopying and phone calls etc. It won’t be nearly as cheap as you think.

Sono

do you accept you’ll be at a financial loss even if you win yeah? Or is it simply damage limitation at this stage?

Peregrinus

Lawyer here. I would never, ever go into court without having briefed myself on the facts, researched the issues, had a meeting with my client, spent some time thinking about the arguments that the other side may advance and researched the rebuttals that I will offer if they do. I am not an idiot, and I don't enjoy making a fool of myself in public.

There's a couple of hours work in that, minimum, and that's before I have travelled to court, sat around waiting for the case to be called, and then participated in the hearing, all of which adds up to a minimum of half a day.

So, unless the OP has a lawyer friend who will do this as a favour, this is going to cost, certainly more than the best award that the OP can hope for in the proceedings.

Sono

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716639#Comment_122716639

spot on! Madness taking this to the small claims court for a moral victory.

893bet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716760#Comment_122716760

I disagree. A moral victory paves the way for change. If the OP can afford it.

Firblog

I wonder if a solicitor would take it on a no foal no fee basis, the foal being whatever the judge awards 😁, I'm out 600 on a failed ipad, I'd be no worse off with that outcome.

Seriously though, I'll have a chat about likely costs with the solicitor before engaging them. 👍️

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716897#Comment_122716897

It is also hard to see a solicitor being happy to accept the award as fee. What if the court orders Apple to carry out a repair? That is of little value to a solicitor. Even a replacement might be seen as of little value to the solicitor.

As a general comment, it is hard to see how the Small Claims procedure would ever be useful for a limited company when solicitor costs are taken into account.

Firblog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716955#Comment_122716955

I thought the 'seriously though' part of my previous post would have given a clue to posters that the statement preceding it was not a serious suggestion

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716955#Comment_122716955

It looks to me like a flaw in the small claims procedure, and possibly one that has survived for so long because defendants rarely invoke it — possibly because, not being legally advised themselves, they don't realise that they can.

(Of course, it cuts both ways. If I, as an individual consumer, sue a limited company using the small claims procedure and a director or shareholder turns up to court to argue the case on behalf of the limited company, I can object to the court hearing them, argue that the defendant is unrepresented, and look for judgment in default.)

rock22

@Peregrinus "

(Of course, it cuts both ways. ….., I can object to the court hearing them, argue that the defendant is unrepresented, and look for judgment in default.) "

Interesting. It really does look like a serious flaw that wasn't thought through. A simple solution would be to allow costs be awarded. In this case, as the defendant has insisted the claimant has legal representative could the claimant argue for those costs?

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716997#Comment_122716997

The simpler (and better) solution would be to amend the rules of court so that, under the small claims procedure, when a party is a limited company a director of the company can appear for the party at the hearing.

The whole point of the small claims procedure is to make it possible to pursue a claim without requiring professional legal representation. Therefore, amending the rules so that professional legal representation isn't needed is a better solution than amending the rules so that, if you are obliged to get professional legal representation and you are fortunate enough to be on the winning side, you can look for an order for costs.

Firblog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716978#Comment_122716978

Yeah, I was thinking that myself. (For if/when I'm in scc as a private person)

Have to say though, I'm a bit perplexed re the application of the ruling to the small claims court (Obviously that may be a result of my huge lack of legal qualifications), when the supreme court judge who wrote the ruling in their first sentence states "This appeal raises the difficult question of the entitlement of a company to be represented in proceedings before the Superior Courts  by a person who is not a lawyer with a right of audience" surely declaring that her ruling does not include/apply to the lower courts?

However, whatever about me paying for representation in the small claims court, I've not got the wherewithall to contest that point with Apple up to the superior courts, I can be thick at times, but rarely stark raving mad.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717065#Comment_122717065

You're right; the District Court is not one of the Superior Courts.

But the ruling mentioning the superior courts is only a particular application of a general rule. I haven't read the judgment but I'm guessing that it mentions the superior courts because it related to proceedings that, as it happens, were proceedings in the superior courts. The court answered the question before it, which was whether a company which was a party to those proceedings could be represented by a director. They didn't need to consider the question of whether that company could be represented by a director in the lower courts, so they didn't say anything about that.

But the reasons why a company cannot be represented by a director in the superior courts would apply equally in the District Court. So if you ask the same question in relation to proceedings in the District Court, you'll get the same answer — unless you can point to something that means the answer in the District Court is different, either in general or in relation to the small claims procedure.

If such a thing exists, it's most likely to be found in the District Court Rules, which are available on the Courts Service website.

The general rule about rights of audience (i.e. who can appear in court) is set out in Order 6. There is nothing there that would allow a limited company to be represented by a director or shareholder.

The special rules for the small claims procedure are set out in Order 53A. There's nothing in it that expressly modifies Order 6, or expressly allows a limited company to be represented by a director or shareholder.

Ord 53A does say that each party is liable for its own legal costs (rule 10) and underlines this by saying that the court may not make an award of costs to a party (rule 13). You could mount an argument that these provisions, plus the provisions for court staff to assist parties to formulate their claim (rule 3, rule 4) and to proactively manage/progress the claim (rules 5, 6, 8) all point to a public policy that professional legal representation should not be required when the small claims procedure is used, and that this creates an implicit derogation from rule 6, or at least provides a basis on which the court can, at its discretion, in support of that policy, derogate from rule 6 and allow a director to appear. Honestly, it's not a strong argument but with a sympathetic judge, on a good day, with a fair following wind, in the dusk, with the light behind you, you might get lucky.

If you did get lucky Apple could appeal the ruling allowing a director to appear and, on appeal, they would probably get the ruling overturned. But they might decide not to appeal, because the amount involved is (to them) trivial, and because an appeal (which would be to the Circuit Court) might attract notice and they might not look good, and because there's a very slim chance that the ruling would be upheld and if there's one thing they'd like even less than a District Court judge allowing a director to appear, it's a Circuit Court judge agreeing that this was correct.

ChuckProphet

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122716639#Comment_122716639

Seems hardly worthwhile financially for a business to turn up even if they win. Would there be many no-shows from businesses?

I have a date in a few weeks.

martingriff

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122711448#Comment_122711448

You think a solicitor is just going to show up and just go in cold to the case. They will do there own check u(will not take what you say or checked up) , then there are costs like travel, waiting on the case and the fee for taking your case. By all means take the case you have but be prepared on the reasonable costs it will take

Firblog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717420#Comment_122717420

Are you going as a claimant against a limited company?

muloc

Can a company settle on the morning at the court before the judge starts?

Firblog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122719246#Comment_122719246

I believe a settlement can be agreed anytime; but when asked by the judge why no settlement offer had been made, Apple's solicitor said that she had been given no instruction in that regard.

nachouser

In fairness, Peregrinus has probably already spent more than 15 mins of their time just considering the scenario.

Followed. Seems mad over 600 quid, but hey.

Firblog

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122719564#Comment_122719564

Yeah, agreed, If Apple had let case proceed it wouldn't be facing having to send a brief to a 2nd hearing.

nachouser

Which will cost more than 600 quid. Anyway, good luck with it.

Peregrinus

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717420#Comment_122717420

I don't have any information on the proportion of cases in the small claims court that are undefended. But a few thoughts:

1. Not every busines is a limited company. If your claim is against a sole trader or a partnership, they're not faced with this problem.
2. Lots of claimants might not know that they could challenge a director who turns up on behalf of a limited company. Even if they do know, they might prefer to have their day in court and actually argue for their claim. So representation by a director may not be challenged.
3. As a consumer, you'll probably only ever bring a couple claims in the small claims procedure. As a business, you'll face a whole bunch of them. You can't afford to develop a reputation of always conceding claims made against you, so the cost of defending claims has to be treated as an overhead of the business even if, on a claim-by-claim basis, the cost of defending a claim usually exceeds the value of the claim.

rock22

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122717065#Comment_122717065

It might be worth highlighting your experience with the relevent minister and CCPC . The treatment of limited company claimants would seem to fly in the face of the Court services own information on its website,

"The Small Claims procedure is a service provided by District Court offices and is designed to handle consumer or business claims inexpensively without involving a solicitor.  "

whiterebel

I'd talk to the clerk of the court. As rock22 quoted above, it was intended that there would be no need for solicitors, and it couldn't be appealed to a higher court. Maybe the judge needs to check it out, as they were caught of guard

WildCardDoW

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122720942#Comment_122720942

Seems clear and concise, @Peregrinus no?

Best of luck @Firblog.

https://www.courts.ie/small-claims-procedure

https://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/courts-system/small-claims-court/

Can a business claim against another business?

Since January 2010, businesses can make claims against other businesses relating to contracts for goods or services purchased.

It does not apply to claims about:

• Breaches of leasing agreements
• Debt or liquidated damages
• Agreements to which the Consumer Credit Act 1995 applies

Firblog

Spoke to my solicitor today, he's reaching out to people he knows in Cork to get a newbie some court experience 😁, and I'm more than happy if I can get that representation - I can get to explain what the issue is and answer any and all questions asked. If I win grand, if not.. I'm not much worse off than I am now, and I've gotten my day in court.