Traveller sues hotel for not having enough security for wedding

end of the road

anncoates wrote: »

Nope they're deciding not to open their business on a particular day. As is their right.

no, bigots closing costing the country money because they are bottom of the barrel bigots is all it is . the supposed "right" only exist because it seems nobody has the bottle to stand up to them, why i don't know as with a strong government there is nothing they could do if their "right" was taken away.

anncoates wrote: »

Their regrettable but calculated risk means their business stays intact and some other mug ends up being dragged through court because a bunch of people can't comport themselves like human beings

risk my backside. they signed up for the risk so its there job to have to deal with it. they don't like it, shut down and find another business. change the law and have it that if they do close they still get dragged through the courts because its obvious as hell what they are up to so it should be easy. regrettable should be change to no excuse

Sociopath2

end of the road wrote: »

it is and it should be forced on them. discrimination must be eradicated at all costs



i wouldn't be so sure. a well proved claim and enough of a pay out and one such business might just go bang.



its not necessary at all. its just bigotry, and those who do it need to be banned from operating similar businesses for the greater good. bigots must be destroyed.



for now. these bigots and their businesses will be eradicated eventually.



whether its the truth or not is irrelevant. refusing a traveler because he/she is a traveler is pure bigotry and those who do it are the dregs of society and they need to be severely punished and their businesses got rid of.

They should be forced to deal with violence and assaults, seriously?? You're an absolute joke, it's entertaining reading what passes for your thoughts.

No one has or will ever go out of business for refusing to deal with travellers.

If you showed the same concern about the criminals in the travelling community who are the source of this problem, instead of directing all your anger at decent business people I might have some sympathy for your point of view. However it's clear that this is the usual extreme left at all costs nonsense you spout.

jimgoose

I'm surprised they were allowed within three thousand yards of the Curragh, to be quite straight.

end of the road

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

So they sued because there wasn't enough security. If the hotel had put on extra security they'd probably have sued for discrimination. This is one of the reasons hotels don't want traveller weddings. It was years ago, but a new hotel opened locally and they accepted a wedding booking not realising that it was a traveller wedding. They destroyed the place, literally smashed the place up inside so badly that the hotel had to close for months to repair the damage.

we all don't want a lot of things, but guess what, if they come with the territory then you've got to put up with them. so if hotels don't want traveler weddings, tough they should be forced to take them, unless they can prove with vidio evidence the exact people booking the wedding have caused trouble in their hotel before. you can blame the bigots who refuse someone simply for being a traveler for this, they are the reason this needs to be implemented

jimgoose

end of the road wrote: »

we all don't want a lot of things, but guess what, if they come with the territory then you've got to put up with them. so if hotels don't want traveler weddings, tough they should be forced to take them, unless they can prove with vidio evidence the exact people booking the wedding have caused trouble in their hotel before. you can blame the bigots who refuse someone simply for being a traveler for this, they are the reason this needs to be implemented

Are you mad??

abff

Deleted User wrote: »

First of all, do you understand the concept of insurance? It is unlikely that the hotel owner will actually pick up the bill at all.

Secondly, do you understand the issues surrounding the duty of care when a 14 year old injured child (or "g*bsh*te" as you call him) sues? Do you appreciate the MacNamara and Purtill cases? Do you seriously think for one second that the lawyers who took those ground breaking decisions should have paid up had they lost?

Third, do you appreciate what your proposal to tear up the usual rules of negligence and apply absolute liability in lost cases would mean? It would mean the kids like those in the MacNamara and Purtill cases would live out their lives with serious injuries, caused by another, but no lawyer would put their neck on the line. In fact, no ground breaking cases would be brought at all, no risky cases would be fought. It would be a catastrophe in terms of developing the law.

Fourth, it is quiet likely that the lawyers in this case may go unpaid, or with a fraction of what they should have received. There are very few other jobs where that applies, none in the public sector, few in the private sector. That's the risk he took, to add a new risk of making them cough up...a laughable proposal.

First of all, I wasn't suggesting that the usual rules of negligence should be torn up. I was suggesting that there should be some form of disincentive for lawyers to take on some cases. Admittedly, I don't know the way the legal system works all that well (and you clearly do - are you a lawyer by any chance?), but the current system stinks.

I hope the defendants have adequate insurance to cover their costs, but even if they do, they probably won't get off scot free as they are likely to face increased premiums going forward. And they had to spend a considerable amount of time being dragged through the courts.

To be honest, I just felt that this thread was focussing entirely on the traveller issue and was heading towards the usual mix of racism and innuendo on the one hand and outraged political correctness on the other (although we haven't seen much of the latter so far on this thread) and I thought that there was another factor in this case that was being ignored and that was worthy of attention.

If you feel that the only way you can win an argument with me on this issue is by insulting me, then that's your prerogative. But if you are someone with a professional background, I would have hoped for better. Or am I being naive?

Sociopath2

end of the road wrote: »

no, bigots closing costing the country money because they are bottom of the barrel bigots is all it is . the supposed "right" only exist because it seems nobody has the bottle to stand up to them, why i don't know as with a strong government there is nothing they could do if their "right" was taken away.



risk my backside. they signed up for the risk so its there job to have to deal with it. they don't like it, shut down and find another business. change the law and have it that if they do close they still get dragged through the courts because its obvious as hell what they are up to so it should be easy. regrettable should be change to no excuse

Why do you insist that they must accept the very high risk of travellers turning violent?

Why is it accepted that travellers are violent and the rest of us must put up with it?

Why don't you insist that travellers should not bring weapons to weddings and have riots? Would that not be a better solution to the problem?

mikom

Well at least they saved the violence for the reception in the hotel.
The last wedding had barely begun when a lad was shot dead in the churchyard.......

K.Flyer

end of the road wrote: »

[...]
risk my backside. they signed up for the risk so its there job to have to deal with it. they don't like it, shut down and find another business. change the law and have it that if they do close they still get dragged through the courts because its obvious as hell what they are up to so it should be easy. regrettable should be change to no excuse

In other words what you are saying is that people with a reputation for wrecking hotels should be allowed to do so, if that's what they want to do, and the hotel industry should put up with it.

end of the road

Sociopath2 wrote: »

No one will ever go out of business for refusing to deal with travellers.

ever? wouldn't be so sure

Sociopath2 wrote: »

If you showed the same concern about the criminals in the travelling community who are the source of this problem

thats the polices job. if they are refusing to deal with that issue then thats up to the relevant authorities to ensure they deal with it. i, won't be making any more of an issue of it because its travelers then i would over any other criminal as to me crime is crime whoever does it. oh and by the way, the source of the problem of businesses refusing travelers because they are travelers are the businesses themselves and their bigotry. they just use the criminals in the community as an excuse because they can get away with it. travelers and other minorities are an easy target.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

No one will ever go out of business for refusing to deal with travellers.

ever? wouldn't be so sure

Sociopath2 wrote: »

directing all your anger at decent business people

decent business people my backside. if your refusing someone on the basis of them being a traveler or being gay or whatever, your a bigot and your about as undecent as you can get.

Dangerous Man

Look - let's stop applying these ridiculous standards to travellers. As a different ethnic group they have different rules and traditions around things like weddings.

So they got a bit boisterous? That's normal.

We have to stop imposing our standards of normality onto them - we may be appalled at shootings with improvised shotguns at Smithfield; we may be appalled at never-ending battles with slash hooks and bottles in public; we may be appalled with organized bare-knuckle boxing and indecipherable call out videos by those same bare-knuckled pugilists; we may be appalled with rampant criminality and thievery; we may be appalled with the indifferent destruction of vast tracts of public land - littering it with empty kerosene kegs, nappies, and dead animals.

We have to understand that travellers are different to us - we're the problem.

end of the road

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Why do you insist that they must accept the very high risk of travellers turning violent?

they cannot refuse someone on the basis of them being a traveler so that must be enforced. they use violence as an excuse but the real reason they refuse them is simply because they are travelers.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Why is it accepted that travellers are violent and the rest of us must put up with it?

i didn't know it was

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Why don't you insist that travellers should not bring weapons to weddings and have riots?

i'm not in government or the police. not my problem or my job. if the police get evidence there is going to be trouble its their job to deal with it and stop it if they can.

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Would that not be a better solution to the problem?

the solution is putting out of business those who refuse travelers just because they are travelers, and ensuring they cannot operate or work in a similar business again.

end of the road

K.Flyer wrote: »

In other words what you are saying is that people with a reputation for wrecking hotels should be allowed to do so, if that's what they want to do, and the hotel industry should put up with it.

no, the hotel should have to go to court with actual evidence that the particular persons have caused trouble in that hotel before to get permission to refuse them. no evidence, no right and if they do it anyway, they will be in contempt of court and face an automatic shut down and bann from operating similar businesses.

end of the road

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Look - let's stop applying these ridiculous standards to travellers. As a different ethnic group they have different rules and traditions around things like weddings.

So they got a bit boisterous? That's normal.

We have to stop imposing our standards of normality onto them - we may be appalled at shootings with improvised shotguns at Smithfield; we may be appalled at never-ending battles with slash hooks and bottles in public; we may be appalled with organized bare-knuckle boxing and indecipherable call out videos by those same bare-knuckled pugilists; we may be appalled with rampant criminality and thievery; we may be appalled with the indifferent destruction of vast tracts of public land - littering it with empty kerosene kegs, nappies, and dead animals.

We have to understand that travellers are different to us - we're the problem.

we have a police force to deal with criminals whoever they may be. if they aren't doing it, then any evidence of them not dealing with it needs to be passed on to those in charge and pressure put on them to deal with it.

jimgoose

end of the road wrote: »

no, the hotel should have to go to court with actual evidence that the particular persons have caused trouble in that hotel before to get permission to refuse them. no evidence, no right and if they do it anyway, they will be in contempt of court and face an automatic shut down and bann from operating similar businesses.

...or do like a lot of pubs, and "close" while the Caravan Utilising Nomadic Travellers are having their whatever-it-is.

whitey1

I dont know if such a thing exists, but wouldnt a "known troublemaker" policy make a lot of sense. Anyone, traveller or settled, who is convicted of serious public order offenses automatically forefeits their right to get served in a public house or hotel.

Omackeral

end of the road wrote: »

no its not. political correctness is a myth. it doesn't exist. simply

It does.... and you're the Undisputed Champion of it.

K.Flyer

end of the road wrote: »

no, the hotel should have to go to court with actual evidence that the particular persons have caused trouble in that hotel before to get permission to refuse them. no evidence, no right and if they do it anyway, they will be in contempt of court and face an automatic shut down and bann from operating similar businesses.

What a load of utter nonsense, do you really read what you write before posting.
So much for free will and choice of who you want to do business with.

Not a NSA agent

A traveller wedding without at least three deaths is considered a dull affair.

Omackeral

end of the road wrote: »

its not necessary at all. its just bigotry, and those who do it need to be banned from operating similar businesses for the greater good. bigots must be destroyed.



these bigots and their businesses will be eradicated eventually.

You occupied Dame Street, didn't you?

JaffOs

end of the road wrote: »

we have a police force to deal with criminals whoever they may be. if they aren't doing it, then any evidence of them not dealing with it needs to be passed on to those in charge and pressure put on them to deal with it.

I want to bang my head against my desk every time I read a post of yours. Everyone one should be "forced" to deal with this but when anything is put on you "its not your problem". Please for the sake of logic and common sense take a break from the keyboard.

Grayson

JaffOs wrote: »

I want to bang my head against my desk every time I read a post of yours. Everyone one should be "forced" to deal with this but when anything is put on you "its not your problem". Please for the sake of logic and common sense take a break from the keyboard.

Are you saying that if he (Or she) saw a crime they wouldn't report it?

Let's not forget the number of Irish stag parties that have gotten out of control. Should we ban Irish guys on a stag parties because the Irish have a culture of drinking and it can sometimes end badly?

The vast majority of travelers weddings go off without a hitch.

That's not to say that there aren't issues in the traveler society. from drinking, to fighting to domestic violence. not to mention child mortality and their average age expectancy. However it's wrong to say that all travelers are the same. Just like it's wrong to say that all Irish young lads are the same.

J Mysterio

dialer wrote: »

He clearly lost his case. I wonder who now is left to pay the defence costs, as i would imagine he went with free legal aid.

Is free legal aid not only applicable for a defendant?

MathDebater

end of the road wrote: »

they cannot refuse someone on the basis of them being a traveler so that must be enforced. they use violence as an excuse but the real reason they refuse them is simply because they are travelers.

You evidently have absolutely fcuk all experience of working in hotels if you think that they refuse custom from travellers purely because they are travellers. If you are good for payment, won't act the bollocks or inconvenience other paying customers and or bring negative attention to the hotel(eg an extremist group holding a convention there) then they don't really give a damn who you are. Margins are tight and bringing in revenue is king.

Travellers are refused simply because of their actions. They are grand at the start, but once drink is taken; oh boy. You might get a few grand out of them for the reception, dinner and a good bar takings. But the destruction they cause and the comps and apologies you will have to dish out the next day make it not worth your while.

If you ever worked a traveller wedding you would know the score. Once the dinner and speeches are over, the same lads who were great craic at the start of the day start becoming extremely rude and threatening. So much so that it's actually unsafe to have younger and female staff on the floor. When it kicks off, welp. If you experienced it then you would change your tune.

I've worked hundreds of weddings, christenings and other types of functions featuring all sorts of different cultures and backgrounds. Sure, on occasion they have had brief moments of idiots acting out too. But that's immediately nipped in the bud and the organisers and the rest of the attendees are full of apologies for the rest of the night. Usually my biggest gripe was arseholes clicking their fingers, lads tapping me on the shoulder when I've my back turned and carrying a large drinks order or drunk, horny aul wans talking nonsense. Working a traveller function is a different ball game altogether. There's an inevitable feeling of dread throughout the shift. It's going to kick off.

Just a matter of when.

J Mysterio

Not a NSA agent wrote: »

A traveller wedding without at least three deaths is considered a dull affair.

:pac:

I see what you did there.

MathDebater

Grayson wrote: »

The vast majority of travelers weddings go off without a hitch.

I started working in hotels in my teens, continued throughout working in them throughout my time in college and will occasionally pick up a few shifts to top up my wages coming up to Christmas etc. Half my family work in hotels full time.

I've yet to meet someone who would agree with your statement.

Ken.

Everyone here seems to be missing the bigger story. Judge in shocking common sense ruling. That'll be him barred from the christmas party.

Dangerous Man

Very musical people.

Schism

End of the road, hi. How's it going?

Few questions if you don't mind.

1. Can you stop typing bigot? The word has lost all meaning to me.
2. Are you Batman?
3. Do you live in the same world as everyone else?

Man, you're totally blinkered to the way of the world for some reason. It seems you've got this belief that everything should be proper, correct and done exactly by the book but it's way off. Things aren't black and white like you're describing them. Let's take an example.

You say that a hotel owner must take all and any business from anyone. OK. The hotel takes a traveller wedding, some property damage occurs, some fights break out and as a result due to breakage / comping other guests / bad press any monetary gain from the booking has been nullified.

With me still? Good. There's one last step. You are now that hotel owner. This is your business, this is how you make a living. You've had a bad experience and being a man(woman) of the world you're surely aware of the reputation this group of people have, you've seen it first hand. Do you take another booking?

In a perfect world the hotel owner gets sufficient remuneration for their losses and life goes on, another similar booking comes along and they take it and hope for the best but that just doesn't happen.

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

again, people not behaving themselves is the risk one takes when operating a business that deals with the public. if you refuse someone on the basis of them from being from a particular community then you get shut down, thats how it should be. if you refuse someone who has caused trouble on your premisys before, or someone who is a well known trouble maker and there is actual evidence of it, then that is completely different.

People generally might get a bit loud in a pub or might even throw a few digs but get taken aside and calmed down! Travellers it would appear behave differently and have been known to produce knives slash hooks batons pick-axe handles and even firearms when a fracas starts! This will never be part and parcel of running any business, unless of course you run some type of bawdy house or disorderly house which in itself is a crime

foggy_lad

end of the road wrote: »

we all don't want a lot of things, but guess what, if they come with the territory then you've got to put up with them. so if hotels don't want traveler weddings, tough they should be forced to take them, unless they can prove with vidio evidence the exact people booking the wedding have caused trouble in their hotel before. you can blame the bigots who refuse someone simply for being a traveler for this, they are the reason this needs to be implemented

What about people like bus drivers in Dublin coming out from behind their protective perspex screens? Surely they are treating all their passengers as scum just because one or two might be bad eggs? Should they not have to prove that each and every passenger is violent before dealing with them from behind a screen?

galljga1

Dangerous Man wrote: »

Very musical people.

Classic, love the phonetic subs.

abff

abff wrote: »

Admittedly, I don't know the way the legal system works all that well...

Fair enough. But it then makes your proposal to completely change the legal system even less valid, when you concede you don't know much about it.

abff wrote: »

If you feel that the only way you can win an argument with me on this issue is by insulting me, then that's your prerogative. But if you are someone with a professional background, I would have hoped for better. Or am I being naive?

Worst. Point. Ever.

I said your proposal to impose personal liability on lawyers was laughable nonsense. I didn't say anything about you at all. I don't know you. The general rule is attack the post not the poster. I did that, put down your violin, particularly when you now concede that you don't know much about the issue you are raising.

Arbiter of Good Taste

The_Valeyard wrote: »

yes.....only one side has prejudices...

Yeah, I laughed at that post. Clearly the term "irony" doesn't appear in that poster's dictionary

SuperS54

MathDebater wrote: »

I started working in hotels in my teens, continued throughout working in them throughout my time in college and will occasionally pick up a few shifts to top up my wages coming up to Christmas etc. Half my family work in hotels full time.

I've yet to meet someone who would agree with your statement.

The local hotel near where I used to live had seen it's fortunes take a dramatic downturn over the years and had turned from the place to be to something of a Fawlty Towers. In it's dying years the owner was desperate for revenue and started taking traveler weddings. It certainly improved business, not only from the function room side but also from the bar as many regulars would turn up to have a few pints and then watch the antics in the car park. Once enough drinks had been consumed the staff could sense the atmosphere change and would drop 2 broom handles through the double doors to the bar side to create a sterile area for the locals. It was great entertainment, a cross between zombie night (you'd get various faces pressed up against the little glass panes in the bar doors as the brooms rattled and threatened to give way) and UFC with the baaatings going on in the function room and the car park, some were better organised and would have referees, others just went mental. The function room had been wrecked long ago so the owner wasn't concerned about damage, he limited the amount of bottles in the function room bar so the losses were contained when everything was stolen in the fracas. The only downside was there was only one set of toilets so you had to get your timing right otherwise you had to make a hazardous run in a quiet time to the jacks and hope nothing kicked off when you were locked out...The common factor was that every single wedding without fail that was on when I was there ended up kicking off, some just a few fights but some were out and out slaughter. I also wouldn't be too alarmed about the "kid" mentioned being only 14, I've seen travelers that age dicing with the best of them, I certainly wouldn't want to go mano o mano with the majority I seen...

blinding

Every one should now have to be asked what security arrangements they want for the wedding and

To pay for it . I am off to make my fortune supplying "protection" for weddings £ £ £ £ £ £ £

Pumpkinseeds

end of the road wrote: »

we all don't want a lot of things, but guess what, if they come with the territory then you've got to put up with them. so if hotels don't want traveler weddings, tough they should be forced to take them, unless they can prove with vidio evidence the exact people booking the wedding have caused trouble in their hotel before. you can blame the bigots who refuse someone simply for being a traveler for this, they are the reason this needs to be implemented

Yeah, everyone just discriminates against travellers for no reason.:rolleyes: We have a local halting site and the same families are in court at pretty much every sitting of the District and Criminal Courts, it's not uncommon to see several family members up on the same day. They're notorious for causing trouble and last year a local bar refused them entry, they then went on to sue the bar and try to have their licence removed, a case which they lost.

There's a lot of very good and valid reasons that travellers are disliked by the settled community and mainly it's as a result of their behaviour. Basically if someone behaves like scum they are unwanted and shunned by society, if they want to be treated differently then they're attitude and actions need to change. When I was 19 I saw a traveller guy put a broken Bulmers bottle to the throat of his wife against a pub wall, while she was holding their baby. He was threatening to kill her because she'd come over to the pub to ask him to come home. I'll never forget that.

irishgeo

When did the travellers become an ethnic group? The are irish last time I checked.

If they can become an ethnic group. Why can't everyone else. Surely people who live on the off shore islands could be an ethnic group.

I mean they have different customs and songs than everyone else and are discrimated against by having to vote on a different day than anyone else.

irishgeo

irishgeo wrote: »

When did the travellers become an ethnic group?

They are an ethnic group in NI and Britain and the Government here has been repeatedly asked to do likewise, or at least review their position, by groups here such as the Equality Authority and by the UN, European groups and so on. I am not sure what their stance on "islanders" is, or whether this has been canvassed. While there may be arguments against it, saying "they're Irish, they can't be recognised as a separate ethnic group" is not one.

anncoates

end of the road wrote: »

no, bigots closing costing the country money because they are bottom of the barrel bigots is all it is . the supposed "right" only exist because it seems nobody has the bottle to stand up to them, why i don't know as with a strong government there is nothing they could do if their "right" was taken away.

I actually often share your views on things but this time you're misled. You're exactly the kind of well-meaning liberal of whom traveler advocacy groups and travelers make a mug.

Either you're doing the classic liberal thing of prioritizing ideology over experience/evidence or you have zero experience of the matter at hand.

Avoiding the issue and simply parroting stuff like 'bigot' over and over again - until people presumably keel over in tedium and you 'win' the argbument - won't address that.

blinding

I could see an opening for Boxing Weddings !

Everybody comes in their best boxing gear……………….. and we see what happens !

Sometimes these things are so obvious that you wonder why no one has thought of them.

That Stag party crew could be a good customer.

Boxing Themed Weddings ! You heard it here first folks !

keithclancy

Deleted User wrote: »

First of all, do you understand the concept of insurance? It is unlikely that the hotel owner will actually pick up the bill at all.

Yes, the concept of Insurance is that you pick up the bill in the form of increased premiums.

abff

Deleted User wrote: »

Worst. Point. Ever.

I said your proposal to impose personal liability on lawyers was laughable nonsense. I didn't say anything about you at all. I don't know you. The general rule is attack the post not the poster. I did that, put down your violin, particularly when you now concede that you don't know much about the issue you are raising.

I didn't suggest that the legal system should be completely changed. I just said that it would be nice to have some kind of disincentive that might discourage lawyers from taking on such cases.

One. Word. Replies. may not be directly attacking the poster, but they are extremely condescending. But I guess that's part and parcel of courtroom rhetoric.

I've asked a number of questions in my posts, but you have chosen to only address those points that suit you. Again, I imagine this is an acquired skill honed on the field of battle.

If I can make one last attempt to engage, do you believe that the legal system is absolutely fine the way it is? Or is there any form of amendment to the system that might lead to a reduction in litigiousness that you might find acceptable?

galljga1

Enough of this bigotry, vote yes.

mickydoomsux

galljga1 wrote: »

Enough of this bigotry, vote yes.

Vote Yes to allowing travelers to do whatever they want because of discrimination or something!

sbsquarepants

Next on TV3 My big fat gypsy shower of chancers:D

abff

abff wrote: »

I didn't suggest that the legal system should be completely changed.

If you don't see that imposing personal liability on lawyers where cases fail is a complete change (in fact, that is an understatement) then you have not thought this one out.

abff wrote: »

One. Word. Replies. may not be directly attacking the poster, but they are extremely condescending.

I accept your retraction of the accusation that I attacked you.

abff wrote: »

I've asked a number of questions in my posts, but you have chosen to only address those points that suit you.

I have addressed the most objectionable point, the one you made again and again.

abff wrote: »

If I can make one last attempt to engage, do you believe that the legal system is absolutely fine the way it is?

No no, you might point out the post where you thought I said "everything's grand".

abff

Deleted User wrote: »

If you don't see that imposing personal liability on lawyers where cases fail is a complete change (in fact, that is an understatement) then you have not thought this one out.



I accept your retraction of the accusation that I attacked you.



I have addressed the most objectionable point, the one you made again and again.



No no, you might point out the post where you thought I said "everything's grand".

I give up. You're far better at this game than I am.

abff

abff wrote: »

I give up. You're far better at this game than I am.

Actually, there is one point you made in relation to which I would be grateful if you could provide some clarification.

You suggested in one of your replies that the lawyers on the winning side in a case such as this might end up having little or none of their fees paid. Although you did also suggest that the defendants were probably insured in this specific case and therefore would not be out of pocket.

Would a lawyer really take on a case defending a client subject to an agreement that, if the defendant wins and costs are awarded against the other side, the lawyer would not consider the defendant liable for his/her costs if the plaintiff is unwilling or unable to settle these costs?

I was always under the impression that the defendant would be 'on the hook' for any outstanding costs in such circumstances.

galljga1

abff wrote: »

I give up. You're far better at this game than I am.

Our traveling friends have stacked the cards against themselves. No one can win this 'their' side. Apart from having experienced their behaviour in bars, restaurants, and a sports club in which I worked years ago, recently I was in my local hotel having a pint when a traveller couple after fighting among themselves then started trying to start a fight with us. When we did not bite they went on to beat the **** out of each other. I wouldn't let them in the door. Let them sue.