Tries scam - no action taken.

CeilingFly

Case today thrown out by Jacqueline Linnane (only judge that seems to see through these scum)

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/man-loses-120k-damages-claim-against-elderly-woman-and-priest-85-after-alleged-car-tip-35905687.html

Why don't the media name the scamming solicitors and scamming barristers?

They know its a scam - law society are spineless gobsh1tes as well claiming that it doesn't happen.

biko

"Look what you f**king done to my car you f**king b***h," Razvan Marcu shouted and roared at an 85-year-old woman after her car "tipped" his, a court has heard.

...when Marcu’s car had “tipped” a priest’s car in a second minor incident only three days earlier, Marcu had told the cleric: “You shouldn’t be on the road because of your age.”

Sounds like a village in Romania is missing an idiot.

CeilingFly

biko wrote: »

Sounds like a village in Romania is missing an idiot.

Plenty of Irish run the scam too, particularly a recently formed "ethnic" group.

They have absolutely nothing to lose as its unlikely they have the funds to pay the costs awarded against them.

The solicitors and barristers aiding these scams should be jointly accountable.

flyingsnail

Well at least he doesn't walk away totally scot-free

After Judge Linnane threw out both his claims Marcu walked from court with nothing other than the judge’s direction that he pay Ms O’Byrne’s and Fr Halpin’s legal costs totalling in the region of €25,000.

CeilingFly

flyingsnail wrote: »

Well at least he doesn't walk away totally scot-free

Somehow I reckon he's renting the house and is not earning a lot, so no chance of the 25k being paid - that's why it's a scam facilitated by a small group of unethical solicitors and barristers.

And guess who carries the costs at the end of the day? Yep, us.

Sue Pa Key Pa

CeilingFly wrote:

Plenty of Irish run the scam too, particularly a recently formed "ethnic" group.

Trust me it is every class, creed & colour at it.

NUTLEY BOY

AFAIK Her Honour has a decently good common law background and so she is very good and well experienced indeed at dealing with a lot of these running down and other personal injuries cases.

As far as the barristers and solicitors go it is quite an objective situation for them when taking instructions. They do not sit in judgment of the client - that would be unprofessional. What they do is to look at the instructions given by the client and assemble the evidence. They will then take a view of the evidence to answer a primary question namely "does the available evidence suggest that the plaintiff will establish his case on the balance of probabilities". If the answer is "yes" the client is advised accordingly. It is the client who takes the actual decision on whether or not to proceed with the action having also been advised properly of the risks of litigation.

Bashing solicitors and counsel because a case is rejected is somewhat misguided. Indeed, it is highly defamatory to suggest conspiratorial impropriety on their parts for bringing forward a case that is ultimately rejected. A case may be lost on the day quite simply because the evidence just did not run well and make the required standard.

If you want to take the suspicious line about solicitors and counsel all you need to do is get the evidence.......

CeilingFly

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

AFAIK Her Honour has a decently good common law background and so she is very good and well experienced indeed at dealing with a lot of these running down and other personal injuries cases.

As far as the barristers and solicitors go it is quite an objective situation for them when taking instructions. They do not sit in judgment of the client - that would be unprofessional. What they do is to look at the instructions given by the client and assemble the evidence. They will then take a view of the evidence to answer a primary question namely "does the available evidence suggest that the plaintiff will establish his case on the balance of probabilities". If the answer is "yes" the client is advised accordingly. It is the client who takes the actual decision on whether or not to proceed with the action having also been advised properly of the risks of litigation.

Bashing solicitors and counsel because a case is rejected is somewhat misguided. Indeed, it is highly defamatory to suggest conspiratorial impropriety on their parts for bringing forward a case that is ultimately rejected. A case may be lost on the day quite simply because the evidence just did not run well and make the required standard.

If you want to take the suspicious line about solicitors and counsel all you need to do is get the evidence.......

But isn't it very strange that a lot of the dodgy cases seem to use a small pool of solicitors and a small pool of barristers?

There are many good barristers who are quite disgusted by their colleagues who take these scam cases.

NUTLEY BOY

CeilingFly wrote: »

But isn't it very strange that a lot of the dodgy cases seem to use a small pool of solicitors and a small pool of barristers?

There are many good barristers who are quite disgusted by their colleagues who take these scam cases.

Careful now

yosser hughes

How come in the reporting of these cases, the plaintiff's solicitors are not mentioned but the defence solicitors always are.
Maybe I missed where it mentions the solicitors for the plaintiff?

Sue Pa Key Pa

Equally as bad, the doctors and consultants who write up these reports to be used in court are shameless

CeilingFly

And. Another scamming case and again the solicitors and barristers who I believe are complicit in these ever increasing insurance scams are not named

Can the law society answer that?

Remember its you and me that pay for these scamning litigants and the complicit solicitors and barristers.

http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/husband-of-irish-reality-tv-star-has-two-personal-injury-claims-worth-120k-thrown-out-35913842.html