Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

BattleCorp · 30-05-2019 2:19pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

Interesting precedent for bogus claims.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/solicitors-offices-searched-by-gardaí-in-bogus-claims-crackdown-1.3871865

Note the role of the solicitor firm in this instance, not bothering to check the identity of the claimants. In otherwords they were facilitating fraudulent activity without conducting due diligence, a common theme it seems from these solicitor firms.

Is there a legal obligation on solicitors to check that their clients are who they say they are? I doubt it.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 2:29pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there a legal obligation on solicitors to check that their clients are who they say they are? I doubt it.

Yep it said there wasn't a legal obligation.

Which is pretty shocking to be honest. Is it any wonder there are so many bogus claim attempts and each claim takes up insurance companies time and money as well as legal costs for those who are falsely claimed against.

Some solicitor firms will entertain any claim no matter how bogus or weak the case is.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 2:36pm

Snow Garden wrote: »

Businesses are really angry about this incident and insurance fraud.

I don't think even Fine Gael realise the damage she has caused.

A solicitors firm can launch an insurance suit against these businesses, without bothering to check if the claimant is who they say they are, if they have a history of bogus claims, or without checking if the claimant is genuinely injured. And the business has to pay 600 euro to deal with these solicitor firms and their bogus claims.
The whole thing is a joke, presided over by successive governments, and a succession of ministers for justice who also happened to belong to the legal profession.

McMurphy · 30-05-2019 2:36pm

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

What do you believe?

Both versions probably.:pac:

seamus · 30-05-2019 2:36pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Is there a legal obligation on solicitors to check that their clients are who they say they are? I doubt it.

Depends on the services provided. Solicitors helping you buy a house for example are required to verify your identity under money laundering legislation.

One of the problems here is that solicitors are in effect self-regulating via the law society.

And one of the most frustrating aspects of this is that when a representative of the LS is interviewed about bogus claims and unwinnable cases, they will claim that solicitors to a fault, never bring cases to court that are clearly fraudulent, are never involved in legal scams, and never bring a case that they think they can't win.

So as long as the law society continues to pretend that there's nothing wrong and that solicitors are infallible professionals who perform their role impeccably, dodgy solicitors will continue taking the piss.

golfball37 · 30-05-2019 2:40pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.

Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.

Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

Separation of powers is a pillar of democracy on that id agree with you.

Maybe the people should elect them like America? I’d love the chance to can a judge who lets Wayne with 100 convictions back on the streets so a solicitor friend can hoover up future guaranteed free legal aid gravy

blanch152 · 30-05-2019 2:41pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

I'm not defending Bailey either. I don't think many would defend her.

25.—(1) If, after the commencement of this section, a person gives or dishonestly causes to be given, or adduces or dishonestly causes to be adduced, evidence in a personal injuries action that—

(a) is false or misleading in any material respect, and

(b) he or she knows to be false or misleading,

he or she shall be guilty of an offence.

Check out the bit I highlighted in bold. You have to know that it is false or misleading. So if it was a genuine error (and I'm not saying that), it's not an offence.

What does "gives evidence" in this Section mean?

Is it evidence in a statement of claim?
Is it evidence in a sworn affadavit?
Is it evidence in court only?

Be right back · 30-05-2019 2:49pm

Well, the hotel has confirmed that the case has been officially dropped!

Wheety · 30-05-2019 2:54pm

I'm still laughing at her contradicting herself within about 10 minutes during that interview.

Sean, I couldn't go home for 3 days because of this.

Sean, I had to work from home all week.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 2:59pm

5 of the last 7 Ministers for Justice come from legal backgrounds. I'm not sure of Charlie Flanagans previous career. There isn't a hope of them taking on the legal establishment when it comes to PI claims.

30-05-2019 3:05pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

5 of the last 7 Ministers for Justice come from legal backgrounds. I'm not sure of Charlie Flanagans previous career. There isn't a hope of them taking on the legal establishment when it comes to PI claims.

Alan Shatter's name is mud with a lot of barristers. His Legal Services Bill, now very much diminished, would have been a huge advancement for the rights of litigants and access to the courts.

Mary Robinson herself, as a lawyer, was instrumental in developing the law on access to legal aid in this country. It has to be recognizer that some of the most important progress in public access to the courts has been driven by lawyers.

whisky_galore · 30-05-2019 3:05pm

Wheety wrote: »

I'm still laughing at her contradicting herself within about 10 minutes during that interview.

Sean, I couldn't go home for 3 days because of this.

Sean, I had to work from home all week.

Maybe she has two or more houses?
With housekeepers, bills to pay?
I tell you, you should try it sometime!

VinLieger · 30-05-2019 3:12pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Alan Shatter's name is mud with a lot of barristers. His Legal Services Bill, now very much diminished, would have been a huge advancement for the rights of litigants and access to the courts.

The reason his name is mud with pretty much every barrister is when he was an opposition TD and still practicing Law he pretty much demanded the title of senior counsel barrister despite never having trained as a barrister. The only reason for this was so he could charge senior counsel rates which far outstrip those of a solicitor fees.

This is also a big part of why his legal services bill faced so much opposition because he had absolutely nobody willing to get on his side because of all the bad blood he had created. Granted it would have likely faced opposition anyway but he effectively made it impossible due to his arrogance.

Of course he still paints himself as the victim in all of this though.

brooke 2 · 30-05-2019 3:17pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Don't forget though that Shatter's opinion there is only his opinion. His opinion isn't law. Legal people often nearly always disagree.

I'm surprised at Shatter being FG criticising someone else from FG. It's almost as if he has a gripe against the party over something or other.

It was also Thomas Byrne's opinion last night with Ivan and Matt. He said he is a solicitor and would not have taken the case.

30-05-2019 3:29pm

VinLieger wrote: »

The reason his name is mud with pretty much every barrister is when he was an opposition TD and still practicing Law he pretty much demanded the title of senior counsel barrister despite never having trained as a barrister. The only reason for this was so he could charge senior counsel rates which far outstrip those of a solicitor fees.

This is also a big part of why his legal services bill faced so much opposition because he had absolutely nobody willing to get on his side because of all the bad blood he had created. Granted it would have likely faced opposition anyway but he effectively made it impossible due to his arrogance.

Of course he still paints himself as the victim in all of this though.

I have a lot of time for Shatter, I like that he's enormously bright, that he is his own man, that he is unafraid to speak his mind; and that he usually advocates in the public interest,above party loyalty.

But lets leave aside whether or not we like the man.

Is he a lawyer? Yes
Did he make sincere and important efforts to drag the legal professions into the 21st century, despite huge opposition from vested interests? Undoubtedly, yes.

Therefore, this idea that lawyers qua policymakers will always protect one another, and drive-on that gravy train, is patently false.

brooke 2 · 30-05-2019 3:34pm

VinLieger wrote: »

Shatter has a serious axe to grind in this case as Josepha Madigan nabbed a seat ahead of him in the new constituency created in the last election.

TBH id always be looking for the agenda behind anything Shatter utters, hes an arrogant so and so who much like Bailey always plays the victim.

Yes, I seem to recall there was bad blood between Shatter and Madigan. Guess Shatter would be only too glad to get the boot in.

BattleCorp · 30-05-2019 3:47pm

blanch152 wrote: »

What does "gives evidence" in this Section mean?

Is it evidence in a statement of claim?
Is it evidence in a sworn affadavit?
Is it evidence in court only?

Evidence can be anything that you use to back up a personal injury claim. It can be a statement, medical report, engineering report, affidavit etc.

Evidence isn't always fact. One witness can give evidence and say one thing and another witness may say another. It doesn't mean that they are lying, but it could mean that they are.

Engineering reports often differ too. One engineer may attribute the cause of the accident to one thing and the other engineer might have a different opinion.

Just because something is presented as evidence doesn't make it fact. It's up to the court to decide what is fact.

BattleCorp · 30-05-2019 3:51pm

brooke 2 wrote: »

It was also Thomas Byrne's opinion last night with Ivan and Matt. He said he is a solicitor and would not have taken the case.

Normally all a solicitor has to go on is what their client tells them. If their client is lying or exaggerating, how can they know for sure.

It's easy for yer man Thomas Byrne to be wise once all the facts are known and say he wouldn't have taken the case. Go back two or three years ago when all the facts weren't known and he might have given a different answer.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 3:52pm

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

I have a lot of time for Shatter, I like that he's enormously bright, that he is his own man, that he is unafraid to speak his mind; and that he usually advocates in the public interest,above party loyalty.

But lets leave aside whether or not we like the man.

Is he a lawyer? Yes
Did he make sincere and important efforts to drag the legal professions into the 21st century, despite huge opposition from vested interests? Undoubtedly, yes.

Therefore, this idea that lawyers qua policymakers will always protect one another, and drive-on that gravy train, is patently false.

And yet the fact that Personal Injury claims and insurance costs are out of control and regulation around it is equivalent to the wild west would say otherwise.

After numerous justice ministers in the last 10 years, most of them with a legal background, a solicitor can still bring a personal injury case against a business without any legal requirement to verify the identity of the claimant, without any legal requirement to do some basic checks on the veracity of the claim, without considering if the claimant was negligent or not, or if they have a history of claims.
And if a claimant lies in a PI case, there appears to be no criminal penalties that can be brought against them.
And if someone tries to find out who lies, solicitors can fall back on "client-solicitor confidentiality".

What a complete failure of successive governments and ministers for justice. And each bogus claim costs money to process and if insurance companies fight it and win, it will still cost them.

This is one of the reasons why insurance costs continue to rise. The PI industry is out of control.

SnazzyPig · 30-05-2019 3:54pm

Did I hear of a spokesman for the assoication of lawyers that represents these claimants try to make the case that the ridicule Maria Bailey has vbeen subjected to would put off genuine victims of negligence etc. from taking cases, akin to the victims of rape being deterred from seeking justice because of the trauma of the trial process?

30-05-2019 3:57pm

VinLieger wrote: »

The reason his name is mud with pretty much every barrister is when he was an opposition TD and still practicing Law he pretty much demanded the title of senior counsel barrister despite never having trained as a barrister. The only reason for this was so he could charge senior counsel rates which far outstrip those of a solicitor fees.

This is also a big part of why his legal services bill faced so much opposition because he had absolutely nobody willing to get on his side because of all the bad blood he had created. Granted it would have likely faced opposition anyway but he effectively made it impossible due to his arrogance.

Of course he still paints himself as the victim in all of this though.

Did you read him in the indo today?? he said that he was called greedy by many, not because he was greedy but because "as everyone knows" the greedy jew is a well know negative slur, so it was anti-Semitism.
Also he received white powder in to his office which was first thought to be anthrax or some such substance, when it turned out to be finely ground ashes..it was representative of the burned bodies of the holocaust!!

WT actual FOOK!

F34 · 30-05-2019 4:00pm

Part of our bailout package along with water charges was a reduction in legal fees.

The fact that the government decided that water charges implementation was easier than tackling the cabal that is the legal profession says it all.

Shatter tried to tackle the legal fees aspect but as soon as the report was ready it went not to the government but the Law society where they simply said not a hope Conor Pope actually did a piece on it at the time.

Shefwedfan · 30-05-2019 4:01pm

All said and done this is the Irish voters:

Carolann Clarke, a 10-year resident of Dun Laoghaire, had always supported Fine Gael although she never voted for Ms Bailey.

“You have to give her the benefit of the doubt, but if you are a TD you have to lead by example,” she said. Ms Clarke added that Ms Bailey had made a “poor error” and should expect repercussions. “I don’t think she should resign. But I do think she should be a bit more appreciative of her position.”

This is the clowns that are voting these people in!!!!!

BattleCorp · 30-05-2019 4:06pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

a solicitor can still bring a personal injury case against a business without any legal requirement to verify the identity of the claimant, without any legal requirement to do some basic checks on the veracity of the claim, without considering if the claimant was negligent or not, or if they have a history of claims.

Doing basic checks and determining liability isn't the job of the plaintiff's solicitor. Their job is to advise and advocate for their client.

Quite often liability is still an issue well into the investigation process. It can be years after legal proceedings have begun before liability can be established. And quite often liability is never decided upon until a judge makes a ruling. So how can a solicitor decide at a moment's notice who is liable based on what their client tells them?

30-05-2019 4:09pm

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

And yet the fact that Personal Injury claims and insurance costs are out of control and regulation around it is equivalent to the wild west would say otherwise.

After numerous justice ministers in the last 10 years, most of them with a legal background, a solicitor can still bring a personal injury case against a business without any legal requirement to verify the identity of the claimant, without any legal requirement to do some basic checks on the veracity of the claim, without considering if the claimant was negligent or not, or if they have a history of claims.
And if a claimant lies in a PI case, there appears to be no criminal penalties that can be brought against them.

Lets take this list of complaints one-by-one

A business is entitled to know who is suing it. What do you mean by 'verifying the identity of the Claimant'? There may be isolated cases where a claimant is not who they claim to be, but that is a really marginal problem. Most people are who they say they are.

Re checking the veracity of a claim: It isn't a solicitor's job to do this in and of itself, but the veracity will become apparent as evidence is gathered. Remember, it's not in any lawyer's interest to bring a claim, especially where a litigant has no resources. The lawyer (whether a solicitor or a barrister acting under instructions) will not be paid for a claim that is doomed to fail.

Finally, there are of course penalties for people who bring unmerited claims in which the plaintiff has lied. The problem is that you cannot simply assume that every failed case means that a litigant has lied. Civil cases are tried on the balance of probabilities, but lying under oath (for example) must typically meet the criminal standard -- a finding beyond any reasonable doubt.

Anyway, this is getting way beyond the initial claim that lawyers themselves are only driven by self-interest. Our recent history (Alan Shatter and Mary Robinson are cases in point) suggests otherwise.

ToBeFrank123 · 30-05-2019 4:16pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Doing basic checks and determining liability isn't the job of the plaintiff's solicitor. Their job is to advise and advocate for their client.

Quite often liability is still an issue well into the investigation process. It can be years after legal proceedings have begun before liability can be established. And quite often liability is never decided upon until a judge makes a ruling. So how can a solicitor decide at a moment's notice who is liable based on what their client tells them?

Nope. Instead they put their client and the client puts themselves through this mess. I'm quite sure its very common. In this example Madigan and Bailey were friends. Madigan must have known Bailey ran a 10km 3 weeks after her claim. There is no way she couldn't have known.

Cases are thrown out of the High Court every day, thankfully, after the claimant has been shown to be an out and out liar. It can take years, a lot of money and time to get to the High Court. Taxpayers money is also wasted processing these cases and it contributes to a backlog where genuine PI cases have to wait in the queue.

Someone with a genuine case such as a victim of the cervical check scandal has to wait in the queue while a solicitors firm sends forward cases to the courts where the claimants identity and other issues are not checked out by the solicitor.

30-05-2019 4:16pm

rusty cole wrote: »

Did you read him in the indo today?? he said that he was called greedy by many, not because he was greedy but because "as everyone knows" the greedy jew is a well know negative slur, so it was anti-Semitism.

My toes curl when people throw around unmerited accusations of anti-semitism, homophobia or racism when people disagree with individuals with those backgrounds.

But you'd have to concede that a lot of the criticism of Shatter tip-toed (or trundled, less delicately) around his being jewish. Just search for his name on Twitter, and you'll soon see innuendo that fits right into various anti-Semitic tropes.

expectationlost · 30-05-2019 4:19pm

Allinall wrote: »

How do you know what actually happened?

she told us on the radio, that there were things wrong in the affidavit

facehugger99 · 30-05-2019 4:20pm

This whole issue would be sorted out in a jiffy if the awards were treatment-based.

This bolloxology of awarding huge sums of money to people for injuries, encourages any crookster to chance their arm on receiving a large payout. The odds are in their favour to get the win and there is almost zero chance of them suffering financially even if their claim is demonstrated to be false.

The legal profession are making a killing from the current situation and regular people are being shafted left, right and center to keep this gravy train running.

Reform of the legal profession was supposed to be a key condition in securing our bailout funds from the troika but it's been frustrated at every turn by the usual vested interests and there is absolutely no political will to do anything about it. In the meantime so called 'middle Ireland' is being milked once again for everything.

expectationlost · 30-05-2019 4:20pm

rusty cole wrote: »

Did you read him in the indo today?? he said that he was called greedy by many, not because he was greedy but because "as everyone knows" the greedy jew is a well know negative slur, so it was anti-Semitism.
Also he received white powder in to his office which was first thought to be anthrax or some such substance, when it turned out to be finely ground ashes..it was representative of the burned bodies of the holocaust!!

WT actual FOOK!

who called him greedy?

Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Comments