Call us today0800 160 1298
 
 

Advantage Litigation

Welcome to Advantage Litigation Services. We provide affordable access to commercial litigation.

  • Home
    Home This is where you can find all the blog posts throughout the site.
  • Categories
    Categories Displays a list of categories from this blog.
  • Tags
    Tags Displays a list of tags that have been used in the blog.
  • Bloggers
    Bloggers Search for your favorite blogger from this site.
  • Team Blogs
    Team Blogs Find your favorite team blogs here.
  • Login
    Login Login form

Failed Business Claims Highlights Risks of Not Having Professional Representation

Posted by on in Uncategorized
  • Font size: Larger Smaller
  • Hits: 438
  • Subscribe to this entry
  • Print

A recently failed business claim that was dismissed at court has once again highlighted the many pitfalls and legal complexities facing litigants in person (LIPs – that is, individuals taking legal action without professional representation from a solicitor or barrister).

The claim in question - Daly & Anr v Ryan & Anr. 2021 - concerned an individual businessman who had a costly judgment entered against him simply because he had repeatedly failed to abide by the rules.

The businessman was sued by two claimants who said that he had induced them to make various payments and caused them to incur various costs in connection with proposed business ventures. The claim against him was framed in deceit, conspiracy and breach of contract but, despite the gravity of those allegations, he decided to represent himself in the proceedings without the benefit of professional legal advice.

Judgment on the claim was entered against him due to his failure to comply with a court order requiring him to file in court further information regarding his defence. The businessman’s defence was struck out and he was debarred from further defending the claim. He subsequently applied to have the judgment set aside on the basis that it had been granted on false and inaccurate assertions by the claimants.
That application was, however, made after the expiry of a 14-day me limit and did not adequately set out the grounds on which it was made. It was unaccompanied by evidence, which was not filed until some me later. The defective application was initially dismissed, but the businessman was subsequently granted an oral hearing at which it was considered afresh. Amongst other factors, he also asserted that his delay in filing evidence had arisen from his self-isolation, as a vulnerable person, during the COVID-19 crisis. In ruling on the matter, however, a judge noted that simply referring to the pandemic, without explaining the effect it had on him, could not amount to an excuse for his serious and significant breaches of the rules.

In dismissing his application, the judge noted the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. There was also a powerful public interest in pares being dealt with on an equal footing and finality being achieved. The ruling meant that the judgment against him remained in force. He was also ordered to pay the substantial legal costs of the proceedings.

Commercial Litigation Funding

If you are thinking about taking legal action against another individual or company but are worried about the costs involved, Advantage Litigation Services have the skills and expertise to help you find a way of funding commercial litigation without risking your personal finances or those of your business. Click here to contact us today or call 0800 160 1298 to see how we can help.

 

Get in touch

  1. Your Name(*)
    Please let us know your name.
  2. Your Email(*)
    Please let us know your email address.
  3. Company Name(*)
    Please write a subject for your message.
  4. Your Phone Number
    Invalid Input
  5. Message(*)
    Please let us know your message.
  6. Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Anti-Spam, please enter the characters shown
    Invalid Input

Latest News

  • Following recent Supreme Court rulings in two professional negligence cases, the Court has outlined a “wholly new legal roadmap” for professional negligence claims made in England and Wales. As a result, the Professional Negligence Lawyers Association (PNLA) have said that existing claims will now need to be reviewed, stating that “for many there could be a substantial impact on the likely chances of success and the assessment of financial loss”.The cases in question are Khan v Meadows [2021] and Manchester Building Society v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2021]. The first case centred on whether a medical expert, who failed to diagnose that a mother carried the haemophilia gene, was liable for the costs associated with her son’s autism as well as his haemophilia, whilst the second case concerned whether accountants Grant Thornton were liable for the costs of a building society... Read More

  • A recently failed business claim that was dismissed at court has once again highlighted the many pitfalls and legal complexities facing litigants in person (LIPs – that is, individuals taking legal action without professional representation from a solicitor or barrister). The claim in question - Daly & Anr v Ryan & Anr. 2021 - concerned an individual businessman who had a costly judgment entered against him simply because he had repeatedly failed to abide by the rules. Read More

  • Latest statistics from the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), who are responsible for the regulation of solicitors and law firms in England and Wales, confirm what many in the profession have been predicting for a while; that law firms are accelerating the consolidation process as they begin to embrace new ways of working. Read More