Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

McCrack

Muahahaha wrote: »

Yes, as in the post and reported by Phoenix- Joespha Madigan took the case in 2016 and filed High Court papers, then several months later Deirdre Conroy changed solicitor and the case was transferred to Charles Boyle & Co in Sept 2017.

Madigans hands are still on this and now we have a report that she was practicing personal injury law despite describing herself as a Family Law practitioner.

The claim itself is dubious at best, you know ski resorts tend to be slippy places and you can expect to fall lots and lots when you're learning how to ski. Even expert level skiers fall over, its part and parcel of the sport and it is said that if you are not falling over then you're not pushing yourself hard enough. I've been snowboarding for nigh on 15 years now and in that time I've suffered a ruptured coccyx, a broken wrist and a fractured collar bone. I got free first aid from the ski patrol lads and was treated very well in both French and Austrian hospitals, all for free with a E111 card which is available to all EU citizens for free and gives you medical care in a fellow EU country at no cost to yourself. That was the end of it for me, patched up, happy out and no stupid legal action chancing my arm.

At no point did I ever think of suing the ski resort or operator for my injuries, its a ridiculous thought that you would sue a ski resort because you fell over. But its not beyond Joespha Madigan, she fired in a €60,000 High Court writ against Crystal Ski, an Irish company who employ several dozen people just there off Grafton Street. If they lose this case employees there are in danger of being made redundant, thats the reality of what all these trumped up compo claims come to.

You don't know the facts of the injury or what the particulars of negligence were in fact being alleged so you cannot make a comment on the merit of otherwise of Deirdre Conway's claim

Clearly Madigan Solicitors or Charles Boyle & Son or any solicitors practising personal injury work are going to accept instructions if there is at least a stateable case to be made - that is their business after all.

James Brown

McCrack wrote: »

You don't know the facts of the injury or what the particulars of negligence were in fact being alleged so you cannot make a comment on the merit of otherwise of Deirdre Conway's claim

Clearly Madigan Solicitors or Charles Boyle & Son or any solicitors practising personal injury work are going to accept instructions if there is at least a stateable case to be made - that is their business after all.

Yet Bailey wasn't representing herself.

They've nothing to lose, they get paid if their client loses.

McCrack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yet Bailey wasn't representing herself.

They've nothing to lose, they get paid if their client loses.

Do they? Are you privy to the fee arrangement agreed between Maria Bailey and her own solicitors?

James Brown

McCrack wrote: »

Do they? Are you privy to the fee arrangement agreed between Maria Bailey and her own solicitors?

Do you think they took it on on a 'no win no fee' like real dirt solicitor ambulance chasers?

What quality legal Eagle told Bailey she'd a clear cut case? A jarred one or a chancer getting fees either way?

McCrack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Do you think they took it on on a 'no win no fee' like real dirt solicitor ambulance chasers?

What quality legal Eagle told Bailey she'd a clear cut case? A jarred one or a chancer getting fees either way?

Like you i've no idea so it's best not speculate or make assumptions

And no such thing as 'no win, no fee'.

Costs follow the event. In other words an unsuccessful plaintiff is liable for the defendants costs

James Brown

McCrack wrote: »

Like you i've no idea so it's best not speculate or make assumptions

And no such thing as 'no win, no fee'.

Costs follow the event. In other words an unsuccessful plaintiff is liable for the defendants costs

Yes there is in respect of solicitor fees.

Bailey was told, despite the facts, she'd a clear cut case. That's not a solicitor only backing a winner, taking into account Bailey's own description of events. Even if that wasn't the case or we believe Bailey told a firm to take up the case against the firms best judgment.

Also FYI, the whole point of the thread is speculating on what we don't know and discussing what we do know.

Plumbthedepths

Sure aren't we all waiting for Leo to release the report he had commissioned on Bailey's behaviour. What is it four weeks now and still rumbling on?

James Brown

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Sure aren't we all waiting for Leo to release the report he had commissioned on Bailey's behaviour. What is it four weeks now and still rumbling on?

It'll go the way of the Siteserv investigation fade into fable.

Plumbthedepths

Matt Barrett wrote:

It'll go the way of the Siteserv investigation fade into fable.

That's what they are hoping for Matt but as we can see from recent news articles including the threatened closures due to high insurance it ain't loosing traction. Leo would be best served to release the report.

McCrack

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes there is in respect of solicitor fees.

Bailey was told, despite the facts, she'd a clear cut case. That's not a solicitor only backing a winner, taking into account Bailey's own description of events. Even if that wasn't the case or we believe Bailey told a firm to take up the case against the firms best judgment.

Also FYI, the whole point of the thread is speculating on what we don't know and discussing what we do know.

No there is not. I'll explain it more for you

.. If one person sues another and they withdraw or lose the case they usually will be responsible for the legal costs of the person they sued regardless what fee arrangement they might have made with their own solicitor

As a consequence 'no win, no fee' does not exist

Muahahaha

McCrack wrote: »

You don't know the facts of the injury or what the particulars of negligence were in fact being alleged so you cannot make a comment on the merit of otherwise of Deirdre Conway's claim

Clearly Madigan Solicitors or Charles Boyle & Son or any solicitors practising personal injury work are going to accept instructions if there is at least a stateable case to be made - that is their business after all.

Oh as someone who has worked in ski reorts quite a bit I would have a fair idea what happened. She was on the bunny slope on lesson no.1 on day no.1 and she fell and hit her hip which is a pretty common injury in skiing along with the knees. When I worked in the Remarkables in NZ we would see at least two or three of these type of injury a day, every day, all on the bunny slope for beginners. As staff we even used to take our lunch breaks overlooking the bunny slope such was the sheer comedy value of some of the falls.

Regards stateable cases- that a crock of sh1te. There are some solicitors out there who operate their personal injury business along the lines of just throw enough sh1t at the wall and see what sticks. You'll find a lot of them along Talbot Street but it is not exclusive to that area- even one of our Irelands 'celebrity lawyers' with a very salubrious address engages in this strategy. Sharp practice like this is well known of in the industry.

All we know for now is Joespha Madigan took this case on and it looks spurious at best, just like Maria Baileys swing case. Time will tell the finer details but an injured hip in a ski resort by a beginner skier is par for the course in any ski resort worldwide. If claims were allowed for this stuff every ski company and resort would be shut down poste haste

McCrack

Muahahaha wrote: »

Oh as someone who has worked in ski reorts quite a bit I would have a fair idea what happened. She was on the bunny slope on lesson no.1 on day no.1 and she fell and hit her hip which is a pretty common injury in skiing along with the knees. When I worked in the Remarkables in NZ we would see at least two or three of these type of injury a day, every day, all on the bunny slope for beginners. As staff we even used to take our lunch breaks overlooking the bunny slope such was the sheer comedy value of some of the falls.

Regards stateable cases- that a crock of sh1te. There are some solicitors out there who operate their personal injury business along the lines of just throw enough sh1t at the wall and see what sticks. You'll find a lot of them along Talbot Street but it is not exclusive to that area- even one of our Irelands 'celebrity lawyers' with a very salubrious address engages in this strategy. Sharp practice like this is well known of in the industry.

All we know for now is Joespha Madigan took this case on and it looks spurious at best, just like Maria Baileys swing case. Time will tell the finer details but an injured hip in a ski resort by a beginner skier is par for the course in any ski resort worldwide. If claims were allowed for this stuff every ski company and resort would be shut down poste haste

Well that's pure speculation. You have no idea the circumstance of the injury and whether it occurred on a ski slope or not or whether it occured somewhere else at the resort and what exactly are the breach of duty/heads of negligence being alleged... But I know it suits your agenda to make such assumptions

InTheShadows

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Sure aren't we all waiting for Leo to release the report he had commissioned on Bailey's behaviour. What is it four weeks now and still rumbling on?

Varadkar never had any intention of releasing it. Its FG 101. Lie and deflect until our "fair and balanced" media move onto the next thing.

Muahahaha

McCrack wrote: »

As a consequence 'no win, no fee' does not exist

Well thats not quite true. The first step in any personal injury claim is to submit your claim to PIAB who then make a judgement, this costs only €45. From there the parties can either accept the PIAB ruling or refuse it and go to court. If it is accepted then the claimant gets their several thousand euro payout minus the solicitors fees, which I have seen as high as 30%-40% of the award. If the PIAB ruling goes against the plaintiff the solicitor scratches off the €45 application fee and his limited work to date, ergo the client loses but pays no fees, hence you have your no win-no fee.

And if you think this isnt going on right now in the legal industry then I can only say you are naive, it is de rigeur for some solicitors and this is a fact I know of first hand.

McCrack

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well thats not quite true. The first step in any personal injury claim is to submit your claim to PIAB who then make a judgement, this costs only €45. From there the parties can either accept the PIAB ruling or refuse it and go to court. If it is accepted then the claimant gets their several thousand euro payout minus the solicitors fees, which I have seen as high as 30%-40% of the award. If the PIAB ruling goes against the plaintiff the solicitor scratches off the €45 application fee and his limited work to date, ergo the client loses but pays no fees, hence you have your no win-no fee.

And if you think this isnt going on right now in the legal industry then I can only say you are naive, it is de rigeur for some solicitors and this is a fact I know of first hand.

Eh well piab costs are always a solicitor\client cost, costs don't follow the event there because party/party costs don't feature... But you knew that of course

I'm talking about proceedings having been issued which is only then costs follow the event and no win, no fee does not arise and it never did

Credit Checker Moose

Why is this case not being tried in the courts of Andorra?

Muahahaha

ah you're trying to get into semantics now because you've been proven wrong. You said no win no fee does not exist. When a claimaint sues a defendant through PIAB no win, no fee can and certainly does exist.

McCrack wrote: »

Eh well piab costs are always a solicitor\client cost, costs don't follow the event there because party/party costs don't feature... But you knew that of course

Sorry man you're wrong yet again. After the PIAB have awarded the plaintiff a sum of compensation then can then proceed to court. But before that happens the soliticors for both sides will likely sit down and see if they can thrash out a deal. This bit is a negotiation and everything is up for discussion, including the PIAB fees, medico-legal report fees, physio fees and so on. Any solicitor worth their salt at this point will get the other side to pay all their fees, if they dont they are literally leaving money on the table because they are negotiating from a position of power and they know the other side wants to avoid court at all costs. Some solicitors even negotiate another legal fee from the defendant just for themselves so they get paid on the double, I'm even aware of the State Claims Agency paying out this fee.

Anyway seeing as you think claimants are taking a financial risk of losing their case how about you tell us how you get blood out of a stone for claimants who lose but have no assets?

ohnonotgmail

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Why is this case not being tried in the courts of Andorra?

both parties are irish based and the contract was made here

Credit Checker Moose

I would call it forum shopping as such a case wouldn't last 5 seconds in an Andorran court.

Muahahaha

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Why is this case not being tried in the courts of Andorra?

A very good question, perhaps because the Andorran courts would laugh at her whereas our courts are a soft touch and solicitors like Madigan know this.

James Brown

McCrack wrote: »

No there is not. I'll explain it more for you

.. If one person sues another and they withdraw or lose the case they usually will be responsible for the legal costs of the person they sued regardless what fee arrangement they might have made with their own solicitor

As a consequence 'no win, no fee' does not exist

Ah see if you read my comment you'd have no need.
Let me explain it for you....

McCrack wrote: »

...
And no such thing as 'no win, no fee'.

...

Matt Barrett wrote: »

Yes there is in respect of solicitor fees.
...

Where did I lose you?

In my experience 'No win, no fee' is a scam, but be god it exists.

Plumbthedepths

Credit Checker Moose wrote:

Why is this case not being tried in the courts of Andorra?

I'm guessing the 'injured' party is sueing the tour operator for not having a representative advise her that snow and ice maybe slippy. Joking about the last but but it seems they are suggesting the tour operator was negligent.

McCrack

Muahahaha wrote: »

ah you're trying to get into semantics now because you've been proven wrong. You said no win no fee does not exist. When a claimaint sues a defendant through PIAB no win, no fee can and certainly does exist.



Sorry man you're wrong yet again. After the PIAB have awarded the plaintiff a sum of compensation then can then proceed to court. But before that happens the soliticors for both sides will likely sit down and see if they can thrash out a deal. This bit is a negotiation and everything is up for discussion, including the PIAB fees, medico-legal report fees, physio fees and so on. Any solicitor worth their salt at this point will get the other side to pay all their fees, if they dont they are literally leaving money on the table because they are negotiating from a position of power and they know the other side wants to avoid court at all costs. Some solicitors even negotiate another legal fee from the defendant just for themselves so they get paid on the double, I'm even aware of the State Claims Agency paying out this fee.

Anyway seeing as you think claimants are taking a financial risk of losing their case how about you tell us how you get blood out of a stone for claimants who lose but have no assets?

Now you're describing settlements and what the parties can agree on..not relevant to the discussion

And if an assessment is made and the respondent accepts the assessment and/or the case has merit any good solicitor would not entertain the notion of settling with an insurance company directly at that stage

And no you cannot get blood from a stone

ohnonotgmail

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

I would call it forum shopping as such a case wouldn't last 5 seconds in an Andorran court.

The irish courts are the correct forum.

pablo128

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

I'm guessing the 'injured' party is sueing the tour operator for not having a representative advise her that snow and ice maybe slippy. Joking about the last but but it seems they are suggesting the tour operator was negligent.

I wonder did she have A glass of wine before she went out on the slope. Maybe there was no one supervising her. Or a lack of instructions or something.

Or pure unadulterated greed.

McCrack

Credit Checker Moose wrote: »

Why is this case not being tried in the courts of Andorra?

Because the package holiday act applies

https://www.traceysolicitors.ie/en/holiday-accident-claims/?cli_action=1560795889.172

F34

You’re talking bollix McCrack when’s the last time a Judge awarded costs against a lost claim. The legal system is a merry go round with each of them scratching each other back.

McCrack

F34 wrote: »

You’re talking bollix McCrack when’s the last time a Judge awarded costs against a lost claim. The legal system is a merry go round with each of them scratching each other back.

Costs follow the event, judge has no discretion not to and increasingly defendants are making cost differential applications where the plaintiff does not meet the jurisdiction threshold

Muahahaha

McCrack wrote: »

Now you're describing settlements and what the parties can agree on..not relevant to the discussion

And if an assessment is made and the respondent accepts the assessment and/or the case has merit any good solicitor would not entertain the notion of settling with an insurance company directly at that stage

And no you cannot get blood from a stone

Well it is relevant, you said no win no fee doesnt exist in legal action and Im showing you it most certainly does and is the modus operandi of many a solicitor.

Agree that a good solicitor would advise go to court for a higher award but that is certainly not what always happens- some claimants at this point do not want to wait a further year or two for their payout, they have the money spent in their head on a new car, a holiday, etc and they want their payout now.

Many other claimants do not want a court appearance at all, they want their claim kept hidden from their family, friends and most importantly their employer. Nor do they want local media reporting on their claim. So they settle post PIAB but their solicitor negotiates a higher award than what PIAB awarded but lower than what a court is likely to award. The extra money awarded over and above what PIAB have awarded is known as nuisance money which tells you all you need to know about how this is viewed in the industry. The majority of the time insurance companies will pay out nuisance money rather than risk going to court. Solicitors know this and play the game accordingly.

Stop moaning ffs

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well I know you're all mad agin Johnny but maybe take some time out to do some therapeutic carpentry, like Joseph of Nazereth :pac:

Because she's back baby, throwing around High Court compo writs like confetti at a wedding Just for clarity though Madigan no longer has the case, after she filed the initial pleadings soon after in 2017 FFs Deirdre Conroy changed solicitor for reasons unknown.



Now here is the interesting bit- up until now Joespha Madigan has been refusing to answer questions about her involvement in the Maria Bailey case. She refuses to say whether or not she advised Bailey that she had "a clear cut case" and has hidden behind client confidentiality as her cover. We were told by FG hacks on here that Joespha practiced Family Law and there is no way that she would lower herself to that personal injury stuff.

Well now that turns out to be a crock o' sh1te because Phoenix magazine is reporting, and I quote verbatim:



Now what that says to me is that Joespha Madigan personally signed the papers going into the High Court. The article states her name- it does not state Madigan & Co. Solcitors so there is now no hiding behind the company. We were told before that she practices Family Law only but that no longer appears to be the case and further questions on her involvement in the Maria Bailey case are now even more valid than they ever were.

Thanks for sharing this. Just quoting to remind certain people