We can't judge whether the offer is "cruel" or "derisory". Simply because we don't know the numbers. One sixth of what he wants is barely relevant.
If he is asking for £6 million and being offered £1 million, that's 1 thing. If he is asking for £600,000, and being offered £100,000 that is totally different.
And I always had a simple rule. I never thought any offer was "cruel" or "derisory". It was just the other side setting out their best-case scenario. No different from me setting out my Client's best-case scenario.
We can't judge whether the offer is "cruel" or "derisory". Simply because we don't know the numbers. One sixth of what he wants is barely relevant.
If he is asking for £6 million and being offered £1 million, that's 1 thing. If he is asking for £600,000, and being offered £100,000 that is totally different.
And I always had a simple rule. I never thought any offer was "cruel" or "derisory". It was just the other side setting out their best-case scenario. No different from me setting out my Client's best-case scenario.
I watched the tv drama last night. Embarrassing that it could have happened in the UK.
I used to live next door to the Village Post Office. And my neighbour was 1 of those imprisoned in relation to this.
It is definitely worth watching. I thought it was very well done. The frustration of those involved was palpable. Some of the Post Office hierarchy should be in jail. My next door neighbours daughter was involved. They lent her the money to repay the Post Office. Unfortunately she has died of cancer since.
It's one way traffic with the post office they police themselves so the sub post masters had no chance, they ruined lives and hopefully will be brought to account
I used to live next door to the Village Post Office. And my neighbour was 1 of those imprisoned in relation to this.
It was quite interesting from a legal perspective. The legal fees for the victims court action was funded by investors. The Post Office defence hinged on the fact that they maintained throughout that the Horizon system could not be accessed remotely. The victims produced a Whistle Blower that testified that this was not true. And that the system was regularly secretly accessed remotely at the Fujitsu office. Any adjustments made were not detectable by the sub-postmasters. At this point it was evident that the victims had won the case. The Post Office proceeded to stall the outcome by attempting to disqualify the judge. By this time the victims funds had run out. The victims lawyers were therefore under pressure to settle the case. In my view there is a question mark over whether or not the lawyers are at this stage prioritising their clients interests, or their investors, and their own. The lawyers sourced the investors. They reached a settlement of £58million. The legal fees and the return to the investors, which included a monthly interest fee, totalled £46million. This left £12million to be split between the 550 victims. Which in many cases wouldnt have even covered their losses. Those that had criminal convictions were disallowed from taking part.
I am aware of cases run on a no win, no fee basis. In these cases, I believe that the client knows exactly where they are. They sign a contract agreeing to perhaps a 30 or 40% deduction from any settlement in respect of legal fees. And no fees if they lose.
In this case, you surely have to question whether the lawyers were more concerned about getting a good settlement for their clients, or recouping the £46million, in respect of their fees, and satisfying their investors.
This of course assumes that the figures quoted were accurate. Although I have no idea why they would possibly wish to quote inaccurate figures.
I thought that some agreement had been recently reached on compensation, so I have no idea why Alan Bates could be disappointed with what he has been offered. Assuming the agreement had been stuck to.
I have the advantage there, as I have many years' experience working with, and for, legal expenses insurers.
I hear what you say. It is all true, and all relevant. However, there is another side to this particular coin.
Legal expenses insurance comes in 2 parts. Before the Event (BTE) and After the Event (ATE).
BTE insurance is great. Often comes as an add-on to contents insurance, sometimes via work and trade unions etc. 1 of the reasons it is tremendous value is that most people forget they have it.
ATE is more problematic. You correctly identify the problems. But what is the alternative? This sort of Group action necessitates laying out £millions in legal fees. And, due to the numbers of Claimants, could never get off the ground via traditional routes. Loads of these people were skint because of the cause of the action. And others would be wealthy. There is no other way this sort of case would ever get off the ground-unless you seriously believe Civil Legal Aid is going to make a 1970s scale comeback.
There is 1 part you haven't fully understood. Quite understandable, as it is complex. The Group Litigation was for the damages/loss they all suffered. People like Mr Bates, particularly those imprisoned on false charges, can still claim extra money.
I do not know the terms of the litigation funding. I suspect a lot (if not all of it) was done on a percentage basis of the award-rather than split equally per person.
It is usually the case that the ones receiving the higher awards object to paying more of the legal fees than the others.
All these bigwigs at the post office that new there were problems should have bonuses retracted and jailed for all the miscarriages off justice they were part off .. they brought all these postmasters reputations to the gutter .. no enquiries needed .. they new and persecuted these people when it was obvious that the system was flawed . Covering themselves by prosecuting innocent people..They all new about it but done nothing.. maybe they were skinning the cash .. but they should all be serving jail for defamation off character and the term should be all the sentences added together for them all .. name and shame them like the postmasters had done to them and all boardroom post office / government people involved in these cover ups and prosecutions should be disbarred from any board level jobs .. it is the least that needs done .. post office coverup .. everyone off them post office senior management should be jailed for the life’s they destroyed.. no ifs no buts just jail .. Why are they above the law ? It should be an open and shut case against them .. Most likely not one off them will serve time .. The rich like to look after the rich and there excuses will get them off any descent government would already have this mess sorted out .. But our lot like enquiries to waste money ..
I have the advantage there, as I have many years' experience working with, and for, legal expenses insurers.
I hear what you say. It is all true, and all relevant. However, there is another side to this particular coin.
Legal expenses insurance comes in 2 parts. Before the Event (BTE) and After the Event (ATE).
BTE insurance is great. Often comes as an add-on to contents insurance, sometimes via work and trade unions etc. 1 of the reasons it is tremendous value is that most people forget they have it.
ATE is more problematic. You correctly identify the problems. But what is the alternative? This sort of Group action necessitates laying out £millions in legal fees. And, due to the numbers of Claimants, could never get off the ground via traditional routes. Loads of these people were skint because of the cause of the action. And others would be wealthy. There is no other way this sort of case would ever get off the ground-unless you seriously believe Civil Legal Aid is going to make a 1970s scale comeback.
There is 1 part you haven't fully understood. Quite understandable, as it is complex. The Group Litigation was for the damages/loss they all suffered. People like Mr Bates, particularly those imprisoned on false charges, can still claim extra money.
I dont have any answers. I was merely pointing out the problem. I would think that the overwhelming majority of our legal profession are honest, above board, and fully represent the interests of their clients.
However, I am sure there can be a conflict. If you had a firm of Solicitors that specialised in class actions, and regularly used investors to fund these actions. Surely you also have to consider the investors as clients, in addition to their actual clients. Which client is their priority?
Another exacerbating factor is that our legal system could hardly be described as speedy. The sums involved in this type of case are huge. Mr Bates quoted a monthly interest charge. So just calculating the interest charges on such huge sums, caused by numerous delays, will undoubtedly put pressure on lawyers to settle as soon as possible.
I do understand that Mr Bates can still claim extra money. That is exactly what he is currently disappointed with. Unfortunately this debacle has been running for more than 20 years. So maybe he will live long enough to get some extra money. Some havent. I havent followed the story bang up to date, but I thought the Government had agreed some compensation figures.
It would be nice if life was as simple as you want to make it. But, with the greatest of respect, life is not like that.
"All the bigwigs"? How many actually knew and took an active part in all this? Short answer-not many. And many of those didn't work for the Post Office-Fujitsu, external lawyers, etc.
It may well all seem simple now. But that is only after about £20 million in legal fees. Some data protection and Discovery tactics which took me years to be barely competent at.
Employees do not get imprisoned for mistakes made where it was not deliberately done for personal gain. Unless you want to return to the days where employees were routinely forced to pay for any shortfall in the takings. Which would be rather ironic, given what happened to the poor postmasters.
I do not know the terms of the litigation funding. I suspect a lot (if not all of it) was done on a percentage basis of the award-rather than split equally per person.
It is usually the case that the ones receiving the higher awards object to paying more of the legal fees than the others.
The way it was set out in the drama was that the investors money, and legal fees were deducted first. This left £12million to be split between the victims. A comment made that this was less than 20k on average, per victim. Although it was not made clear, on what basis the balance would be split, or whether this figure would actually cover their actual losses. This would be difficult to calculate in many cases.
I have the advantage there, as I have many years' experience working with, and for, legal expenses insurers.
I hear what you say. It is all true, and all relevant. However, there is another side to this particular coin.
Legal expenses insurance comes in 2 parts. Before the Event (BTE) and After the Event (ATE).
BTE insurance is great. Often comes as an add-on to contents insurance, sometimes via work and trade unions etc. 1 of the reasons it is tremendous value is that most people forget they have it.
ATE is more problematic. You correctly identify the problems. But what is the alternative? This sort of Group action necessitates laying out £millions in legal fees. And, due to the numbers of Claimants, could never get off the ground via traditional routes. Loads of these people were skint because of the cause of the action. And others would be wealthy. There is no other way this sort of case would ever get off the ground-unless you seriously believe Civil Legal Aid is going to make a 1970s scale comeback.
There is 1 part you haven't fully understood. Quite understandable, as it is complex. The Group Litigation was for the damages/loss they all suffered. People like Mr Bates, particularly those imprisoned on false charges, can still claim extra money.
I dont have any answers. I was merely pointing out the problem. I would think that the overwhelming majority of our legal profession are honest, above board, and fully represent the interests of their clients.
However, I am sure there can be a conflict. If you had a firm of Solicitors that specialised in class actions, and regularly used investors to fund these actions. Surely you also have to consider the investors as clients, in addition to their actual clients. Which client is their priority?
Another exacerbating factor is that our legal system could hardly be described as speedy. The sums involved in this type of case are huge. Mr Bates quoted a monthly interest charge. So just calculating the interest charges on such huge sums, caused by numerous delays, will undoubtedly put pressure on lawyers to settle as soon as possible.
I do understand that Mr Bates can still claim extra money. That is exactly what he is currently disappointed with. Unfortunately this debacle has been running for more than 20 years. So maybe he will live long enough to get some extra money. Some havent. I havent followed the story bang up to date, but I thought the Government had agreed some compensation figures.
I think you misunderstand the point I am trying to make.
There is a potential conflict of interest. No doubt about it. To give an example I have seen, where a Bank announces its intention to reduce or remove the Overdraft facility for the Firm of Solicitors, the potential for conflict is huge. On top of that, the individual Solicitor can be facing dismissal or redundancy if he doesn't do what the Partners tell him.
Another factor is this. If a Part 36 Offer is not exceeded, then the Claimants, and often the Solicitors, face ruin. Not easy to refuse an offer if there is a 80% chance clients will get more, and a 20% chance clients may owe £millions instead. And the Insurers will want their say, too.
The point is-there is no less bad alternative. Because the only real alternative is that this sort of justice is never achieved.
Comments
https://uk.yahoo.com/news/alan-bates-rejects-derisory-pay-213939893.html
We can't judge whether the offer is "cruel" or "derisory". Simply because we don't know the numbers. One sixth of what he wants is barely relevant.
If he is asking for £6 million and being offered £1 million, that's 1 thing. If he is asking for £600,000, and being offered £100,000 that is totally different.
And I always had a simple rule. I never thought any offer was "cruel" or "derisory". It was just the other side setting out their best-case scenario. No different from me setting out my Client's best-case scenario.
Embarrassing that it could have happened in the UK.
I used to live next door to the Village Post Office. And my neighbour was 1 of those imprisoned in relation to this.
I thought it was very well done.
The frustration of those involved was palpable.
Some of the Post Office hierarchy should be in jail.
My next door neighbours daughter was involved.
They lent her the money to repay the Post Office.
Unfortunately she has died of cancer since.
The legal fees for the victims court action was funded by investors.
The Post Office defence hinged on the fact that they maintained throughout that the Horizon system could not be accessed remotely.
The victims produced a Whistle Blower that testified that this was not true.
And that the system was regularly secretly accessed remotely at the Fujitsu office.
Any adjustments made were not detectable by the sub-postmasters.
At this point it was evident that the victims had won the case.
The Post Office proceeded to stall the outcome by attempting to disqualify the judge.
By this time the victims funds had run out.
The victims lawyers were therefore under pressure to settle the case.
In my view there is a question mark over whether or not the lawyers are at this stage prioritising their clients interests, or their investors, and their own.
The lawyers sourced the investors.
They reached a settlement of £58million.
The legal fees and the return to the investors, which included a monthly interest fee, totalled £46million.
This left £12million to be split between the 550 victims.
Which in many cases wouldnt have even covered their losses.
Those that had criminal convictions were disallowed from taking part.
I am aware of cases run on a no win, no fee basis.
In these cases, I believe that the client knows exactly where they are.
They sign a contract agreeing to perhaps a 30 or 40% deduction from any settlement in respect of legal fees.
And no fees if they lose.
In this case, you surely have to question whether the lawyers were more concerned about getting a good settlement for their clients, or recouping the £46million, in respect of their fees, and satisfying their investors.
This of course assumes that the figures quoted were accurate.
Although I have no idea why they would possibly wish to quote inaccurate figures.
I thought that some agreement had been recently reached on compensation, so I have no idea why Alan Bates could be disappointed with what he has been offered.
Assuming the agreement had been stuck to.
I hear what you say. It is all true, and all relevant. However, there is another side to this particular coin.
Legal expenses insurance comes in 2 parts. Before the Event (BTE) and After the Event (ATE).
BTE insurance is great. Often comes as an add-on to contents insurance, sometimes via work and trade unions etc. 1 of the reasons it is tremendous value is that most people forget they have it.
ATE is more problematic. You correctly identify the problems. But what is the alternative? This sort of Group action necessitates laying out £millions in legal fees. And, due to the numbers of Claimants, could never get off the ground via traditional routes. Loads of these people were skint because of the cause of the action. And others would be wealthy. There is no other way this sort of case would ever get off the ground-unless you seriously believe Civil Legal Aid is going to make a 1970s scale comeback.
There is 1 part you haven't fully understood. Quite understandable, as it is complex. The Group Litigation was for the damages/loss they all suffered. People like Mr Bates, particularly those imprisoned on false charges, can still claim extra money.
I do not know the terms of the litigation funding. I suspect a lot (if not all of it) was done on a percentage basis of the award-rather than split equally per person.
It is usually the case that the ones receiving the higher awards object to paying more of the legal fees than the others.
I was merely pointing out the problem.
I would think that the overwhelming majority of our legal profession are honest, above board, and fully represent the interests of their clients.
However, I am sure there can be a conflict.
If you had a firm of Solicitors that specialised in class actions, and regularly used investors to fund these actions.
Surely you also have to consider the investors as clients, in addition to their actual clients.
Which client is their priority?
Another exacerbating factor is that our legal system could hardly be described as speedy.
The sums involved in this type of case are huge.
Mr Bates quoted a monthly interest charge.
So just calculating the interest charges on such huge sums, caused by numerous delays, will undoubtedly put pressure on lawyers to settle as soon as possible.
I do understand that Mr Bates can still claim extra money.
That is exactly what he is currently disappointed with.
Unfortunately this debacle has been running for more than 20 years.
So maybe he will live long enough to get some extra money.
Some havent.
I havent followed the story bang up to date, but I thought the Government had agreed some compensation figures.
"All the bigwigs"? How many actually knew and took an active part in all this? Short answer-not many. And many of those didn't work for the Post Office-Fujitsu, external lawyers, etc.
It may well all seem simple now. But that is only after about £20 million in legal fees. Some data protection and Discovery tactics which took me years to be barely competent at.
Employees do not get imprisoned for mistakes made where it was not deliberately done for personal gain. Unless you want to return to the days where employees were routinely forced to pay for any shortfall in the takings. Which would be rather ironic, given what happened to the poor postmasters.
This left £12million to be split between the victims.
A comment made that this was less than 20k on average, per victim.
Although it was not made clear, on what basis the balance would be split, or whether this figure would actually cover their actual losses.
This would be difficult to calculate in many cases.
There is a potential conflict of interest. No doubt about it. To give an example I have seen, where a Bank announces its intention to reduce or remove the Overdraft facility for the Firm of Solicitors, the potential for conflict is huge. On top of that, the individual Solicitor can be facing dismissal or redundancy if he doesn't do what the Partners tell him.
Another factor is this. If a Part 36 Offer is not exceeded, then the Claimants, and often the Solicitors, face ruin. Not easy to refuse an offer if there is a 80% chance clients will get more, and a 20% chance clients may owe £millions instead. And the Insurers will want their say, too.
The point is-there is no less bad alternative. Because the only real alternative is that this sort of justice is never achieved.