Golden Age

[AGR Model Store]

Interesting we've been offered to buy ( by loan merchant ) alot of Golden Age Stock sitting in storage unit, multi items in various qty.

[Floreat Industria]

I accidentally came across this recent legal case when looking for Pullmans. It is long and complicated but may explain some things:-

 

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/610924b92c94e0239c457f2c

 

 

 

 

 

 

[polybear]

2 hours ago, Floreat Industria said:

I accidentally came across this recent legal case when looking for Pullmans. It is long and complicated but may explain some things:-

 

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/610924b92c94e0239c457f2c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

After a very quick speed read it looks like GA lost the case due to not following correct legal procedures; the claim was for in excess of £4M.  GA are now liable for costs of £28K.  Ouch.

As to whether or not that is the final installment in a long saga though....

[ColHut]

Having read that, it looks like the end of the road indeed.

 

regards.

[polybear]

I thought it quite interesting that GA's legal team didn't continue in the process until the end (if indeed that is "the end").  Did they advise "you ain't gonna win this", or were GA unhappy with them - or wanted to minimise costs to a minimum cos' the case was looking doubtful?  Whatever the reason, to take on the might of a banking organisation it's apparent to me that you need (a) a sound case, (b) follow correct legal procedure to the letter, and (c) have deep pockets....

[Hal Nail]

14 hours ago, polybear said:

Whatever the reason, to take on the might of a banking organisation it's apparent to me that you need (a) a sound case, (b) follow correct legal procedure to the letter, and (c) have deep pockets....

I wouldnt be the least bit surprised if it turned out, on average, people end up losing money when taking someone else to court.

[Bulleidboy100]

On 22/09/2021 at 07:23, Hal Nail said:

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it turned out, on average, people end up losing money when taking someone else to court.

 

That can happen. You can win a case, but if the Judge rules that each party pay their own costs, if the case has run for some days, that can amount to a very large bill - even when you have won. If the legal advise is well given, that will usually give some indication of the chances of success - clients will sometimes go ahead with a court hearing even when they know the success rate is marginal. A very good Judge in this case.

[Edwardian]

On 19/09/2021 at 09:51, Floreat Industria said:

I accidentally came across this recent legal case when looking for Pullmans. It is long and complicated but may explain some things:-

 

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/610924b92c94e0239c457f2c

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

OK, so regardless of the substantive merits of the claim, it is clear from this judgment that the Claimants (or their advisors) were remarkably incompetent in the way they put the claim and this put them in a very poor position in relation to costs. 

 

One significant matter that goes to the issue of the recoverability of costs is that the Claimants, while still represented by solicitors, failed to put in a costs budget in time.  Under the Civil Procedure Rules, if you fail to put in a costs budget, the court will assess your costs as nil; so, even if you win hands down at the end of the day, you cannot recover your costs.

 

Further, the judgment notes that there were a high number of interim procedural applications, and it seems that most of these went against the Claimants so the costs of and incidental of these applications tended to be awarded against the Claimants along the way.

 

What appears to have followed was a failure by the Claimants to meet their disclosure obligations and then to breach a disclosure order.  This appears to have been an 'unless order' (unless you comply with this order, a specified sanction will be imposed).  The Unless Order also dealt with witness statements - clearly out of control by this point - and required a payment of c. GBP 15K, which I infer represents the costs of applications previously awarded against the Claimants but not yet paid.  The sanction specified for non-compliance was the dismissal of the claim.  That may seem harsh, but it is only to be expected where there has been repeated and substantial non-compliance with the procedural requirements, as the judgment catalogued.  An Unless Order should be understood as a final chance.  Unfortunately, as the judgment records, the Claimants allegedly failed to comply with the Unless Order.  

 

At that point, the Claimants' solicitors came off the record.  This could be for a number or reasons (they might have been sacked by the Claimants, they might have sacked the Claimants if they were not being paid, they might have identified a conflict of interest that prevented them from acting further, e.g. because they had been negligent - we cannot know the reason and cannot properly make any assumptions about them).

 

The judgment relates to the court's decision on (i) whether the Unless Order was breached and (ii) if so, whether the court should use its discretion to grant 'relief from sanction', i.e. prevent the coming into effect of the sanction specified for non-compliance, the dismissal of the claim.

 

Unfortunately for the Claimants, the court decided that (i) the Unless Order had been breached and (ii) it should refuse to grant relief from sanctions.

 

The case was dismissed. The Claimants would not doubt then have to pay the Banks costs not just of the application, but of the whole claim, i.e. all the costs of defending it, which I would expect to be very substantial. 

 

To me, as a professional, looking at this catalogue of non-compliance, it seems entirely fair to say that the Claimants' claim was very incompetently handled - this was an entirely avoidable situation and outcome - and it is fair to conclude that there was negligence, both in failing to put in a costs budget and in failing to adhere to disclosure obligations and comply with the rules and orders of the court. It is also noteworthy that a firm of solicitors was on record for the Claimants throughout this period of incompetent case-handling.  What we cannot judge is whose was the negligence; a solicitors not giving the necessary advice or missing deadlines, or the client for a significant lack of co-operation in failing to provide instructions, search for documents etc. So, again, it would be improper to make assumptions as to whose fault this debacle was, but it is clear from the judgment that the claim was spectacularly badly handled and let me just say that this is a surprising outcome for a client who was represented at the material times.