The Advantages of a Fabian Strategy

legal updates

Some people will have genuine concerns they just want to see addressed.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

Quintus Fabius Maximus doesn’t get enough credit. Eclipsed historically by his countryman, Cornelius Publius Scipio and of course, Hannibal Barca, in accounts of the Second Punic War, fought between Rome and Carthage from 218 to 202 BC.

Fabius was the man who realised that outmanoeuvring Hannibal was smarter than fighting him in the field. Hannibal had already beaten Roman armies at Trebia and Lake Trasimene. So Fabius decided not to fight Hannibal, and instead forced him to march in a certain direction. Rome officials disagreed with Fabius and replaced him with the hotheaded, Gaius Terentius Varro. Varro, along with his fellow consul, led the Romans to their greatest defeat at the battle of Cannae in 216 BC. Afterward, the Romans heeded Fabius’s counsel and pretty much ignored Hannibal whilst attacking Carthage’s holdings in Spain.

Not that Fabius has been accorded recognition by posterity. While military schools can wax lyrical about this approach, in common discourse it is used as shorthand for a “do nothing” approach to a problem. Most people would prefer Varro’s idea, conveniently forgetting the result he brought about.

Now in litigation, when you’re the Claimant you need to be proactive; you must send your letter out, wait for a response, and then issue a claim as required. Yet Defendants generally tend not to be so proactive. In my prior experience working for Claimants, I was accustomed to being ignored. Defendants, however, should never ignore any talk of legal action against them.

Instead, consider the nature of the correspondence you are receiving. Some people will have genuine concerns they just want to see addressed. Once that is done, the issue may be resolved without further acrimony. Others may flood you with an unending series of complaints. In that case, and if the complaints are repetitive in what is being stated, a single letter in response may serve the purpose just as effectively as responding to each email, letter, or text message you receive. Then again, it may just see further complaints come your way.

The crucial point with litigation is whether the person making the complaints is actually going to litigate. Those who decide to litigate may send a few letters, before deciding to issue proceedings. Those who decide to not litigate are more likely to consider a ceaseless barrage of texts or emails will get them what they want. With the latter group, a firm response outlining your position is an ideal course of action, particularly if you dispute what they are saying. You can make it clear how you intend to act as well as put them on notice that you won’t respond any further to what is essentially the same complaint you have already addressed.

A good example of where this should have been done is the case of HKRUK II (CHC) Ltd v Heaney [2010] EWHC 2245 (Ch). Here HKRUK applied for an injunction to prevent Heaney from taking action against it after HRUK had added two floors to one of Heaney’s buildings, adversely affecting Heaney’s rights to light on a building he owned. For those unfamiliar with the right to light, it is a legal principle that means an owner of a property is entitled to receive natural light through openings (such as windows) in their property. Although Heaney had threatened repeatedly to take action against HKRUK, he never actually did. HKRUK had grown tired of this and went ahead with construction. When HKRUK tried to prevent Heaney from taking action, the court took umbrage and made an order that HKRUK had to demolish the two new floors, even though they were already rented out. While HKRUK was able to avoid this by making a monetary settlement with Heaney, had HKRUK been content to simply leave things alone, it would not have incurred that cost.

So consider how and when you should make a move, instead of rushing to respond. Or, if you’re in doubt, give Lawgistics a call. It’s a lot better than another Cannae.

HowdenCompetitive, comprehensive, quick

One of the largest independent specialist motor trade brokers in the UK. Our extensive history of supplying insurance to the motor trade means we understand your business needs. By partnering with a specialist insurance broker like us, you get exactly what you need to protect your business.

Gareth WoodLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

Upon receiving a new court claim, do not delay

The consequences of missing a court deadline can be catastrophic.

Poorly pleaded claim, dismissed with costs

This case demonstrates in stark terms the value of being properly advised.

Judges want expert reports

Expert reports are vital to help judges fairly resolve motor trade disputes and determine faults at sale.

Nominal Damages

The aim of the court in civil litigation is to put the parties back in the position they were in had the contract not been breached.

Look what you could have won!

The judge was of the view that it would be inappropriate to require our client to proceed blind or adjourn and prejudice their position.

Strange things are afoot with the Online Claims Portal!

It is now absolutely imperative that all claims received by clients are forwarded to us upon receipt as any delay might prove fatal to one’s cause.

Your Evidence Is Vital

As opposing witnesses give different accounts of what has happened, some cases really will hinge on which version of events the judge prefers.

Get in touch

Complete the form to get in touch or via our details below:

Phone
01480 455500
Address

Vinpenta House
High Causeway
Whittlesey
Peterborough
PE7 1AE

By submitting this quote you agree to our Terms & Conditions and Privacy & Cookies Policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.