NSWRU and referee getting sued

[elementfreak]

I said it on facebook and I'll say it here too. Be careful what you write. "I would advise people not to comment in regards to a matter before the court. Comments in the article are disabled for a reason. There is a risk of defamation and influence of the jury. "

I didn't write that, it's the name of the article. I just posted it to encourage discussion about it.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I said it on facebook and I'll say it here too. Be careful what you write. " I would advise people not to comment in regards to a matter before the court. Comments in the article are disabled for a reason. There is a risk of defamation and influence of the jury. "

What?
This is a wind up, right?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[BPC]

This is interesting.
I would thought her legal advice would have been to add them all, get a verdict and let the court decide who was liable?

But if you sue a defendant and don't succeed, you will wear their costs which might wipe out the judgment monies. It can be a tough tactical call.

 

[BPC]

I said it on facebook and I'll say it here too. Be careful what you write. " I would advise people not to comment in regards to a matter before the court. Comments in the article are disabled for a reason. There is a risk of defamation and influence of the jury. "

The case will be heard by a judge alone. Juries trials in personal injury cases are almost non-existent.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

But if you sue a defendant and don't succeed, you will wear their costs which might wipe out the judgment monies. It can be a tough tactical call.

Bullock or sanderson orders take care of that

 

[I like to watch]

But if you sue a defendant and don't succeed, you will wear their costs which might wipe out the judgment monies. It can be a tough tactical call.

Too true.
It would appear to me, that she is exposing herself to a possible legal bill that would easily exceed any possible judgement.
I hope that it has been explained to her that what is logical or fair does not equal legally correct.

 

[BPC]

Bullock or sanderson orders take care of that

But Bullock and Sanderson orders aren't automatic, and plaintiffs have to show why it was reasonable to sue a successful defendant, usually by pointing to some conduct of that defendant. Brave call to sue a defendant you aren't convinced is liable in the hope that, after the hearing, you can convince a Judge that an alternate costs order should be made. Particularly in this brave new era of cheap, just and efficient litigation.

 

[BPC]

Too true.
It would appear to me, that she is exposing herself to a possible legal bill that would easily exceed any possible judgement.
I hope that it has been explained to her that what is logical or fair does not equal legally correct.

Where you went wrong was using the concepts of logic and fairness in the same sentence as law.

 

[I like to watch]

Particularly in this brave new era of cheap, just and efficient litigation.

I have to use you guys too often.
It is never ever cheap,nor has it ever been efficient.
If you can't flush out a settlement by serving some papers, it literally takes years in a lot of cases.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

But Bullock and Sanderson orders aren't automatic, and plaintiffs have to show why it was reasonable to sue a successful defendant, usually by pointing to some conduct of that defendant. Brave call to sue a defendant you aren't convinced is liable in the hope that, after the hearing, you can convince a Judge that an alternate costs order should be made. Particularly in this brave new era of cheap, just and efficient litigation.

Happens all the time - especially in personal injury litigation

 

[Hugh Jarse]

Did this case come to a conclusion?

Anyone know the outcome?