You cannot have your cake and afford it

legal updates

This update is not about the rights and wrongs of it all. Simply to remind everyone just how expensive and risky going to court can be.

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.

You may well have read about the recent case in Northern Ireland where a bakery refused to produce a cake with a message that they did not agree was appropriate. 

This update is not about the rights and wrongs of it all.  Simply to remind everyone just how expensive and risky going to court can be.

The District Judge in the first instance found against the bakery and ordered that they pay damages (compensation) of £500.  The bakery appealed and lost again and so appealed to the highest court in the UK.  And by the time the case was decided by the Supreme Court the legal bill to the “loser” – was in the region of £450,000!  To put it into perspective, the cost of the cake – had it been baked – was just £36.50.

Oh, and the case ran for over four years…..

And the point is that sometimes in life we have to make decisions based on actual economics and not just because something is “unfair” or “wrong”.  What the writer finds unfair is that the individual* who brought the case in the first instance and who had two courts agree with him, now has to meet all the accumulated legal costs, just because the third court decided otherwise.  What it means ultimately, is, that the lower courts that made the “wrong” decisions get to carry on with doing more of the same, whilst those who initially succeeded have to now pay for those “bad” rulings.

We often get clients who want to fight every dispute and appeal every court decision that goes against them.  But it can get expensive, time consuming and ultimately not always worth the time spent – regardless of what the court finally determines.  Principles come at a considerable price.

*The individual was supported by the Equality Commission who will pay the legal costs of both parties.

Wearewood Services LtdMotor Trade Web Specialists

We offer an all-encompassing web, digital & design service specially tailored to the Motor Industry.

Jason WilliamsLegal AdvisorRead More by this author

Related Legal Updates

An eventful small claims hearing

Discover how a simple oversight in witness representation and off-screen coaching at a remote hearing can dramatically impact legal outcomes, underscoring the critical need for adherence to procedural rules and proper pre-action conduct in our latest insightful article.

From initial complaint to court claim form – let us help you

You can feel assured that court deadlines are attended to with the required attention and specialism.

Is it time to ditch “Dear Sirs”?

Clearly, “Dear Sirs” is old-fashioned, but is it sexist?

Location, Location, Mislocation: A costly oversight in court attendance

What the unfortunate Claimants (husband and wife) had not appreciated, was that the hearing was listed for the court at Central London.

Court re-instates a claim because of its own error!

One wonders how many times the courts have made the same error.

To Be or Not To Be Remains the Legal Question

The Claimant had sought to reject a commercial van that he had been using for business purposes but alleged that he was a consumer.

Always Deal with Court Documents

This cost our member an application fee to the court, plus a legal representative at court for the hearing.

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.