Legal fees move may force father to drop schooling case
A father suing his local council for alleged shortcomings in his daughter's education may be forced to drop the case after being warned he could have to pay thousands of pounds in legal expenses.
In a blow for what parents' groups have described as a test case on their rights, Paul Tierney has been told
by lawyers acting for South Lanarkshire Council that it is seeking to have the case remitted from the small claims court to Hamilton Sheriff Court.
The move would mean that legal expenses would not be limited, potentially leaving Mr Tierney with a huge bill for costs, despite his only putting in a claim for £250.
Mr Tierney, a toolmaker, lodged the action after claiming his daughter had not received proper English tuition in the lead-up to her Standard Grade examination. He said the money would compensate the cost of paying a private teacher, whom he employed in the absence of a dedicated English teacher at St Andrew's and St Bride's High School in East Kilbride.
Mike Dailly, principal
lawyer at Govan Law Centre, attacked the council's move as "completely disproportionate and unfair". He said: "If the case is heard in a Sheriff Court, Mr Tierney could be exposed to thousands of pounds in legal expenses. I don't think that's fair at all, given that his claim is only for £250.
"If you are going to have access to justice, a lot of that is about being able to pursue relatively modest claims without fear of costs. This makes a mockery of the small claims system. It's effectively a way of seeing off the claim."
Mr Tierney's action, which was highlighted by The Herald last month, won the praise of the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, which said it highlighted a lack of clarity over schools' legal obligations when providing education.
The £250 claim was submitted to cover the cost of educating his 15-year-old daughter, Denise, during a 10-week period when no English teacher was available. She sat her exams in May.
When the case appeared at Hamilton small claims court on June 26, the lawyer acting for South Lanarkshire Council pressed for it to be dismissed out of hand, arguing that there were no established legal grounds for the action.
Dorothy McGhee, appearing for the council, argued that there was no contract with either Mr Tierney or his daughter to provide education and that no "duty of care" had been established.
However, in a letter sent to Mr Tierney by Simpson and Marwick solicitors last week, and seen by The Herald, the council's legal representative claim the case involves a "difficult question of law" that would be best dealt with under ordinary cause procedure rather than small claims procedure. A further hearing is due on October 2.
Mr Tierney said the latest development had caused him to have sleepless nights.
He said: "Where do you go to get someone to take responsibility? The whole reason I went through the small claims court is because I couldn't afford legal costs. I have two children at university as well and would have to drop it if it went to the Sheriff Court. The council know there's no way on earth I could afford it.
"If I didn't send my kids to school, the council would be quick enough to take action against me. But it seems that if you question them, there's nothing you can do."
A spokesman for South Lanarkshire Council said: "I can confirm that an application has been made for the case to be remitted to the ordinary court. No decision has yet been made."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: jonny bond, glasgow on Mon 14 Jul 08
This newspaper should instead of bemoaning this poor chaps luck be launching a campaign to fund his legal expenses and up his claim to the hundreds of thousands of pounds his daughters lack of education could cost her.
This newspaper should instead of bemoaning this poor chaps luck be launching a campaign to fund his legal expenses and up his claim to the hundreds of thousands of pounds his daughters lack of education could cost her.
Posted by: impreza18blue, Glasgow on 8:42am Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote][bold]willie mac[/bold] wrote:
And why would a £250.00 court action be referred ro the Sherrif Court. IThis just seems to be another example of a bent judiciary reacting to political influence. Mr Teirney, when you deal with Labour gangsters you would be better with deploying some other form of action. You might only have wanted to get proper tschool tuition for your daugher but but you are going to get f*cked, sh"fted, scr"wed ya poor kn%b end. I agree that people should be entitled to secure their legal rights, and that illegal behaviour should be brought to book, but as the cash for honours, hidden millions in Labour Bank accounts, Wendy Donations, and illegal Wars in Iraq have shown, you will, soon realize what an unimportant land ineffectual little nobody that you are. Sorry, but that's the truth, and even sorrier that yoor daughter did not get the education form South Lanarkshire Council that she was entitled to. Now **** off, and don't even think you could have taken the Council on, cos they'll screw you. [/quote] And here endeth the Party Political Broadcast on behalf of Planet Zorg...........ZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
willie mac wrote:
And why would a £250.00 court action be referred ro the Sherrif Court. IThis just seems to be another example of a bent judiciary reacting to political influence. Mr Teirney, when you deal with Labour gangsters you would be better with deploying some other form of action. You might only have wanted to get proper tschool tuition for your daugher but but you are going to get f*cked, sh"fted, scr"wed ya poor kn%b end. I agree that people should be entitled to secure their legal rights, and that illegal behaviour should be brought to book, but as the cash for honours, hidden millions in Labour Bank accounts, Wendy Donations, and illegal Wars in Iraq have shown, you will, soon realize what an unimportant land ineffectual little nobody that you are. Sorry, but that's the truth, and even sorrier that yoor daughter did not get the education form South Lanarkshire Council that she was entitled to. Now **** off, and don't even think you could have taken the Council on, cos they'll screw you.
And here endeth the Party Political Broadcast on behalf of Planet Zorg...........ZZZZZ
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzz
Posted by: herewegoagain, Glasgow on 9:02am Mon 14 Jul 08
If, despite having tuition, she still only got a "C" grade he should demand the fees back from the private tutor. I'd have expected a better pass than that.
If, despite having tuition, she still only got a "C" grade he should demand the fees back from the private tutor. I'd have expected a better pass than that.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 9:21am Mon 14 Jul 08
Mr Tierney has chosen to bring a case against the Council, no one forced him. If his case is well-founded he will not have to pay the other side's costs. If his case is well-founded he is entitled not to pay the other side's costs and the loss to the tax-payer will clearly be laid at the door of inefficient school authorities.
On the other hand, if his case is not well-founded then he will have forced the Council to spend a lot of tax-payers' money unnecessarily and the tax-payer certainly should be able to recover those costs from him.
If you support Mr Tierney's efforts to be allowed to sue the Council without taking responsibility for costs in the event that his argument is not well-founded you are supporting either 1. Mr Tierney being empowered to have large sums of public money spent on defending possibly ill-founded claims or 2. a situation where the Council would have to hand over money on demand to anyone who raises any case because the cost of defending the action cannot be recovered.
My understanding is that if Mr Tierney wins then the Council will have to pay his costs as that is only fair; if Mr Tierney fails he will have to pay the Council's costs as that is only fair. However, if the Sheriff rules that the case does raise particualr legal difficulties she may rule that neither side should pay the other's costs.
Mr Tierney seems to want the right to sue the Council without the responsibility of paying the costs if his claim is found to be no good.
Mr Tierney has chosen to bring a case against the Council, no one forced him. If his case is well-founded he will not have to pay the other side's costs. If his case is well-founded he is entitled not to pay the other side's costs and the loss to the tax-payer will clearly be laid at the door of inefficient school authorities.
On the other hand, if his case is not well-founded then he will have forced the Council to spend a lot of tax-payers' money unnecessarily and the tax-payer certainly should be able to recover those costs from him.
If you support Mr Tierney's efforts to be allowed to sue the Council without taking responsibility for costs in the event that his argument is not well-founded you are supporting either 1. Mr Tierney being empowered to have large sums of public money spent on defending possibly ill-founded claims or 2. a situation where the Council would have to hand over money on demand to anyone who raises any case because the cost of defending the action cannot be recovered.
My understanding is that if Mr Tierney wins then the Council will have to pay his costs as that is only fair; if Mr Tierney fails he will have to pay the Council's costs as that is only fair. However, if the Sheriff rules that the case does raise particualr legal difficulties she may rule that neither side should pay the other's costs.
Mr Tierney seems to want the right to sue the Council without the responsibility of paying the costs if his claim is found to be no good.
Posted by: mazza, glasgow on 10:07am Mon 14 Jul 08
The lack of provision of effective teachers in the core disciplines is noteworthy - especially if needed to cover for illness etc. The core issue is the misuse of resources. A glut of distant and unnecessary management hierarchies masquerading as learning communities , focus on PSE , RME etc. and lip -service (or worse) paid to the subjects that pupils and parents want taught as a priority , starving departments of cash with annual and significant cuts , this could (and should) be debated in the open. SLC are a particular case who need to re-examine thier priorites in using the generous sums given to them by the Scottish Government but are not isolated unfortunately. I feel for Mr Tierney but he is fighting a losing battle against a cynical and capable opponent. Perhaps the ubiquitous Mr M Dailly would help out.
The lack of provision of effective teachers in the core disciplines is noteworthy - especially if needed to cover for illness etc. The core issue is the misuse of resources. A glut of distant and unnecessary management hierarchies masquerading as learning communities , focus on PSE , RME etc. and lip -service (or worse) paid to the subjects that pupils and parents want taught as a priority , starving departments of cash with annual and significant cuts , this could (and should) be debated in the open. SLC are a particular case who need to re-examine thier priorites in using the generous sums given to them by the Scottish Government but are not isolated unfortunately. I feel for Mr Tierney but he is fighting a losing battle against a cynical and capable opponent. Perhaps the ubiquitous Mr M Dailly would help out.
Posted by: mazza, glasgow on 10:08am Mon 14 Jul 08
The lack of provision of effective teachers in the core disciplines is noteworthy - especially if needed to cover for illness etc. The core issue is the misuse of resources. A glut of distant and unnecessary management hierarchies masquerading as learning communities , focus on PSE , RME etc. and lip -service (or worse) paid to the subjects that pupils and parents want taught as a priority , starving departments of cash with annual and significant cuts , this could (and should) be debated in the open. SLC are a particular case who need to re-examine thier priorites in using the generous sums given to them by the Scottish Government but are not isolated unfortunately. I feel for Mr Tierney but he is fighting a losing battle against a cynical and capable opponent. Perhaps the ubiquitous Mr M Dailly would help out.
The lack of provision of effective teachers in the core disciplines is noteworthy - especially if needed to cover for illness etc. The core issue is the misuse of resources. A glut of distant and unnecessary management hierarchies masquerading as learning communities , focus on PSE , RME etc. and lip -service (or worse) paid to the subjects that pupils and parents want taught as a priority , starving departments of cash with annual and significant cuts , this could (and should) be debated in the open. SLC are a particular case who need to re-examine thier priorites in using the generous sums given to them by the Scottish Government but are not isolated unfortunately. I feel for Mr Tierney but he is fighting a losing battle against a cynical and capable opponent. Perhaps the ubiquitous Mr M Dailly would help out.
Posted by: phil1, edinburgh on 11:11am Mon 14 Jul 08
Carnwarth on 9:21am today
I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice.
The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away.
Carnwarth on 9:21am today
I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice.
The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 11:34am Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote][bold]phil1[/bold] wrote:
Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away. [/quote] I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs?
How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"?
That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.
phil1 wrote:
Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away.
I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs?
How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"?
That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 11:43am Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]phil1[/bold] wrote:
Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away. [/quote] I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs?
How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"?
That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.[/quote] The inverse question to the one you pose is "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250"
The whole idea of the small claims procedure is to allow people to bring actions for relatively small amounts of money without the threat of crippling costs if they lose.
Carnwarth wrote:
phil1 wrote:
Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away.
I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs?
How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"?
That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.
The inverse question to the one you pose is "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250"
The whole idea of the small claims procedure is to allow people to bring actions for relatively small amounts of money without the threat of crippling costs if they lose.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 12:03pm Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Ian Johnston[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]phil1[/bold] wrote: Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away. [/quote] I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs? How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"? That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.[/quote] The inverse question to the one you pose is "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250" The whole idea of the small claims procedure is to allow people to bring actions for relatively small amounts of money without the threat of crippling costs if they lose. [/quote] The council either has to defend its resources when sued, and in that should have the opportunity to recover costs from the other party of the Sheriff considers that the pursuer's case was ill-founded or else it has to simply send a cheque to anyone who writes in and says they are unhappy with a particular service.
Mr Tierney seems to wants to sue the Council for his £250 investment in his child's education and doesn't seem to be prepared to take the responsibility that if his claim is not well founded he might have to shoulder the costs the has imposed on every other tax-payer in the area.
Your question "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250" is a bit difficult to understand. Councils are allowed, and should, defend their resources. It is currently up to elected Councillors and officials to determine what expenditure is in the interests of the Council - but you imply that they shoudl not be "allowed". If they are forced to incur large legal fees then the sheriff will consider whether their fees are reasonable - if the Council has acted unreasonably in terms of legal fees it, like any other person, will not get its costs paid.
Are you suggesting there should be some centrally-imposed inflexible rule that caps legal spending regardless of the circumstances of the case? Who would "disallow" the decision of the Council and how would that promote democracy?
Ian Johnston wrote:
Carnwarth wrote: phil1 wrote: Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away.
I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs? How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"? That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.
The inverse question to the one you pose is "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250" The whole idea of the small claims procedure is to allow people to bring actions for relatively small amounts of money without the threat of crippling costs if they lose.
The council either has to defend its resources when sued, and in that should have the opportunity to recover costs from the other party of the Sheriff considers that the pursuer's case was ill-founded or else it has to simply send a cheque to anyone who writes in and says they are unhappy with a particular service.
Mr Tierney seems to wants to sue the Council for his £250 investment in his child's education and doesn't seem to be prepared to take the responsibility that if his claim is not well founded he might have to shoulder the costs the has imposed on every other tax-payer in the area.
Your question "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250" is a bit difficult to understand. Councils are allowed, and should, defend their resources. It is currently up to elected Councillors and officials to determine what expenditure is in the interests of the Council - but you imply that they shoudl not be "allowed". If they are forced to incur large legal fees then the sheriff will consider whether their fees are reasonable - if the Council has acted unreasonably in terms of legal fees it, like any other person, will not get its costs paid.
Are you suggesting there should be some centrally-imposed inflexible rule that caps legal spending regardless of the circumstances of the case? Who would "disallow" the decision of the Council and how would that promote democracy?
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 12:25pm Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote]Mr Tierney seems to wants to sue the Council for his £250 investment in his child's education and doesn't seem to be prepared to take the responsibility that if his claim is not well founded he might have to shoulder the costs the has imposed on every other tax-payer in the area.[/quote]
If Mr Tierney wins, he won't get any costs from the council save for that of filing the claim, which is around £35 if I recall correctly. The whole point of the small claims procedure is to allow relatively small amounts like this to be disputed in a way which doesn't lumber either side with disproportionate costs if they lose.
[quote]Your question "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250" is a bit difficult to understand. Councils are allowed, and should, defend their resources.[/quote]
The important word there is "[bold]huge[/bold] ", as in ".. to rack up [bold]huge[/bold] legal bills ..." Just as councils have a responsibility to spend public money wisely, they also have a responsibility to treat members of the public fairly. Using the threat of huge legal bills to suppress claims is not, it seems to me, particularly fair treatment.
How will you feel, by the way, if Mr Tierney engages a no-win-no-fee legal team, wins and gives the council a bill for tens of thousands of legal costs instead of thirty five quid?
There is an important point to be settled here. Parents are compelled to send their children to school - or provide an evaluated plan of home education - but at the moment have no right to insist that the children actually be educated in school. At the moment there is a remarkable asymmetry. Doctors, architects, engineers, nurses, surveyors and other professionals can be sued if they do a bad job, but teachers and their employers are effectively immune from any penalties for malpractice.
The truly abysmal performance of most state schools in Glasgow - where it is common for fewer than 10% of leavers to have the basic entry requirements for HE - could open a flood of claims if this case is successful.
That, I suspect, is why South Lanarkshire are trying to bully and treaten Mr Tierney into submission. This matter deserves a thorough legal investigation, and I suspect we agree that it should be in a more serious way than a small claim.
Mr Tierney seems to wants to sue the Council for his £250 investment in his child's education and doesn't seem to be prepared to take the responsibility that if his claim is not well founded he might have to shoulder the costs the has imposed on every other tax-payer in the area.
If Mr Tierney wins, he won't get any costs from the council save for that of filing the claim, which is around £35 if I recall correctly. The whole point of the small claims procedure is to allow relatively small amounts like this to be disputed in a way which doesn't lumber either side with disproportionate costs if they lose.
Your question "In what way is it sensible to allow a local council to rack up huge legal bills defendinga claim for just £250" is a bit difficult to understand. Councils are allowed, and should, defend their resources.
The important word there is "
huge ", as in ".. to rack up
huge legal bills ..." Just as councils have a responsibility to spend public money wisely, they also have a responsibility to treat members of the public fairly. Using the threat of huge legal bills to suppress claims is not, it seems to me, particularly fair treatment.
How will you feel, by the way, if Mr Tierney engages a no-win-no-fee legal team, wins and gives the council a bill for tens of thousands of legal costs instead of thirty five quid?
There is an important point to be settled here. Parents are compelled to send their children to school - or provide an evaluated plan of home education - but at the moment have no right to insist that the children actually be educated in school. At the moment there is a remarkable asymmetry. Doctors, architects, engineers, nurses, surveyors and other professionals can be sued if they do a bad job, but teachers and their employers are effectively immune from any penalties for malpractice.
The truly abysmal performance of most state schools in Glasgow - where it is common for fewer than 10% of leavers to have the basic entry requirements for HE - could open a flood of claims if this case is successful.
That, I suspect, is why South Lanarkshire are trying to bully and treaten Mr Tierney into submission. This matter deserves a thorough legal investigation, and I suspect we agree that it should be in a more serious way than a small claim.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 12:45pm Mon 14 Jul 08
His daughter must be relishing the attention she is getting, and in years to come will thank her father for heaping embarrassment onto her disappointment.
His daughter must be relishing the attention she is getting, and in years to come will thank her father for heaping embarrassment onto her disappointment.
Posted by: martin, edinburgh on 1:15pm Mon 14 Jul 08
surely someone will give him a few bob?
This situation is fairly common, it happened 20-years ago to me at school. A teacher goes off on long-term sick / stress / suspension, but as they are not counted as having officially left a dedicated replacement teacher in that subject cannot be drafted in, instead you get a succession of supply teachers employed on a week-to-week basis who have no time to get acquainted with the material tor class they're to teach even if it is their speciality.
surely someone will give him a few bob?
This situation is fairly common, it happened 20-years ago to me at school. A teacher goes off on long-term sick / stress / suspension, but as they are not counted as having officially left a dedicated replacement teacher in that subject cannot be drafted in, instead you get a succession of supply teachers employed on a week-to-week basis who have no time to get acquainted with the material tor class they're to teach even if it is their speciality.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 1:34pm Mon 14 Jul 08
"How will you feel, by the way, if Mr Tierney engages a no-win-no-fee legal team, wins and gives the council a bill for tens of thousands of legal costs instead of thirty five quid?" - I'll feel fine, because the Sheriff will decide on whether the fees are reasonable.
You do not answer my question - if councils are not to be "allowed" to incure legal expenses you disapprove of then what mechanism are we to have for determining the expenditure? If not elected ouncillors then will it be you or Mr Tierney who decides?
If someone decides to raise an action against you you are entitled to expect to have your fees paid if their case is ruled to be ill-founded. I fail to see why all the rest of us tax-payers have to indemnify Mr Tierney of teh consequences of the action he chooses to take.
"How will you feel, by the way, if Mr Tierney engages a no-win-no-fee legal team, wins and gives the council a bill for tens of thousands of legal costs instead of thirty five quid?" - I'll feel fine, because the Sheriff will decide on whether the fees are reasonable.
You do not answer my question - if councils are not to be "allowed" to incure legal expenses you disapprove of then what mechanism are we to have for determining the expenditure? If not elected ouncillors then will it be you or Mr Tierney who decides?
If someone decides to raise an action against you you are entitled to expect to have your fees paid if their case is ruled to be ill-founded. I fail to see why all the rest of us tax-payers have to indemnify Mr Tierney of teh consequences of the action he chooses to take.
Posted by: phil1, edinburgh on 2:01pm Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]phil1[/bold] wrote: Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away. [/quote] I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs? How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"? That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.[/quote] As I said nit picking - the small claims court is designed so as not to need lawyers.So why would the council rack up huge legal fees the plaintiff is representing himself perhaps you carnwarth or the head of the education department ornone of the many lawyers employed by the council full time could reprensent the council.
No I think it is fear of allowing democratic legal challenge to useless council education department is behind this move. The decision was probably taken by a council employee and not an elected official - whoever tried to do this should be sacked.
Carnwarth wrote:
phil1 wrote: Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away.
I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs? How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"? That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.
As I said nit picking - the small claims court is designed so as not to need lawyers.So why would the council rack up huge legal fees the plaintiff is representing himself perhaps you carnwarth or the head of the education department ornone of the many lawyers employed by the council full time could reprensent the council.
No I think it is fear of allowing democratic legal challenge to useless council education department is behind this move. The decision was probably taken by a council employee and not an elected official - whoever tried to do this should be sacked.
Posted by: Carnwarth on 2:47pm Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote][bold]phil1[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]phil1[/bold] wrote: Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away. [/quote] I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs? How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"? That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.[/quote] As I said nit picking - the small claims court is designed so as not to need lawyers.So why would the council rack up huge legal fees the plaintiff is representing himself perhaps you carnwarth or the head of the education department ornone of the many lawyers employed by the council full time could reprensent the council. No I think it is fear of allowing democratic legal challenge to useless council education department is behind this move. The decision was probably taken by a council employee and not an elected official - whoever tried to do this should be sacked. [/quote] You cannot cover up your inability to engage with someone else’s argument by simply repeating your silly accusation of nit picking (or dancing on the head of a legal (sic) pin). And in any event, the law and the legal system does require a certain attention to detail – things cannot be done simply at your whim even if you think that would be the way to go.
The reason the small claims process is not appropriate is that there appear to be important issues of law. If that turns out not to be the case and the Council are playing silly bugggers, then the Sheriff will not award them their expenses. In any event, they will only get their reasonable expenses – you and whoever planted the story in the Herald use the emotive word “huge”, the question will be whether the expenses are reasonable.
If Mr Tierney forces the Council to court the he should risk paying reasonable expenses if his case is ill-founded.
You persist in thinking that democracy is about people making decisions you approve of – if you disapprove then everyone else must be being undemocratic and should, in the interests of democracy, do what you and Mr Tierney tell them to do. Please make the effort and go along and represent Mr Tierney yourself – with your “ability” to argue you should both get 6 months for contempt!
phil1 wrote:
Carnwarth wrote: phil1 wrote: Carnwarth on 9:21am today I guess Cramwarth is a 'nitpicker' - who can dance on the head of a legal pin. The whole idea of having different courts for different amounts is to allow ordinary people to seek justice. If by doing that you risk all your savings, your home and your car then you are denied justice. The council trick to move the case from a court whether costs are limited to one where they are not is to bully the plaintiff into stopping the procedure. I hope it doesn't work or another little piece of our democratic society will have been chipped away.
I'm no fan of Scottish local government but in what way is it democratic to allow Mr Tierney to force a Council to expend large sums of taxpayers money without the possiblity that, if his case is ill-founded, he has to pay the costs? How is it democratic to say "yes, come one come all and sue the council for a couple of hundred quid and if you lose the taxpayer will pick up the costs"? That sounds more like the dream of lawyers who can get their hands on more public money than any concern with democracy. For goodness sake think before you spout such nonsense.
As I said nit picking - the small claims court is designed so as not to need lawyers.So why would the council rack up huge legal fees the plaintiff is representing himself perhaps you carnwarth or the head of the education department ornone of the many lawyers employed by the council full time could reprensent the council. No I think it is fear of allowing democratic legal challenge to useless council education department is behind this move. The decision was probably taken by a council employee and not an elected official - whoever tried to do this should be sacked.
You cannot cover up your inability to engage with someone else’s argument by simply repeating your silly accusation of nit picking (or dancing on the head of a legal (sic) pin). And in any event, the law and the legal system does require a certain attention to detail – things cannot be done simply at your whim even if you think that would be the way to go.
The reason the small claims process is not appropriate is that there appear to be important issues of law. If that turns out not to be the case and the Council are playing silly bugggers, then the Sheriff will not award them their expenses. In any event, they will only get their reasonable expenses – you and whoever planted the story in the Herald use the emotive word “huge”, the question will be whether the expenses are reasonable.
If Mr Tierney forces the Council to court the he should risk paying reasonable expenses if his case is ill-founded.
You persist in thinking that democracy is about people making decisions you approve of – if you disapprove then everyone else must be being undemocratic and should, in the interests of democracy, do what you and Mr Tierney tell them to do. Please make the effort and go along and represent Mr Tierney yourself – with your “ability” to argue you should both get 6 months for contempt!
Posted by: Ian Johnston, Castle Douglas on 5:07pm Mon 14 Jul 08
[quote][bold]Carnwarth[/bold] wrote:
"How will you feel, by the way, if Mr Tierney engages a no-win-no-fee legal team, wins and gives the council a bill for tens of thousands of legal costs instead of thirty five quid?" - I'll feel fine, because the Sheriff will decide on whether the fees are reasonable.
You do not answer my question - if councils are not to be "allowed" to incure legal expenses you disapprove of then what mechanism are we to have for determining the expenditure? If not elected ouncillors then will it be you or Mr Tierney who decides?
If someone decides to raise an action against you you are entitled to expect to have your fees paid if their case is ruled to be ill-founded. I fail to see why all the rest of us tax-payers have to indemnify Mr Tierney of teh consequences of the action he chooses to take.[/quote] Of course councils are allowed to incur legal expenses. What they should not - what everybody should not - do is run up expenses which are grossly disproportionate to the amount in dispute.
How much do you think a council should be willing (not allowed, willing) to spend to defend a claim of £250? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand?
If someone sues me for a relatively small amount, I don't have to run up large, or even any, fees. It will go through the Small Claims Track which means that the prospect of enormous costs doesn't deter an honest claim or an honest defence.
Your problem seems to be with the whole idea of the Small Claims process, rather than with this case. But how would you like it if you were sued for a paltry sum - £250, say - by someone who said "If you don't concede of course I'll be using a WS and retaining a QC and Junior, so you'll be facing legal bills of at least £5,000". Wouldn't you think that a little unfair, bearing in mind the sum in question.
[italic]
I know what you're thinking. Did he hire six lawyers or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is the UK legal system, the most expensive in the world, and would blow your bank balance clean away, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?[/italic]
Carnwarth wrote:
"How will you feel, by the way, if Mr Tierney engages a no-win-no-fee legal team, wins and gives the council a bill for tens of thousands of legal costs instead of thirty five quid?" - I'll feel fine, because the Sheriff will decide on whether the fees are reasonable.
You do not answer my question - if councils are not to be "allowed" to incure legal expenses you disapprove of then what mechanism are we to have for determining the expenditure? If not elected ouncillors then will it be you or Mr Tierney who decides?
If someone decides to raise an action against you you are entitled to expect to have your fees paid if their case is ruled to be ill-founded. I fail to see why all the rest of us tax-payers have to indemnify Mr Tierney of teh consequences of the action he chooses to take.
Of course councils are allowed to incur legal expenses. What they should not - what everybody should not - do is run up expenses which are grossly disproportionate to the amount in dispute.
How much do you think a council should be willing (not allowed, willing) to spend to defend a claim of £250? A hundred? A thousand? Ten thousand? A hundred thousand?
If someone sues me for a relatively small amount, I don't have to run up large, or even any, fees. It will go through the Small Claims Track which means that the prospect of enormous costs doesn't deter an honest claim or an honest defence.
Your problem seems to be with the whole idea of the Small Claims process, rather than with this case. But how would you like it if you were sued for a paltry sum - £250, say - by someone who said "If you don't concede of course I'll be using a WS and retaining a QC and Junior, so you'll be facing legal bills of at least £5,000". Wouldn't you think that a little unfair, bearing in mind the sum in question.
I know what you're thinking. Did he hire six lawyers or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is the UK legal system, the most expensive in the world, and would blow your bank balance clean away, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk? Posted by: CRAGman, Edinburgh on 5:56pm Mon 14 Jul 08
Keep this in the small claims court - it's a disgrace the council wants to up the anti and in effect bully this man into submission. The Sheriff Court won't deliver any better justice than the small claims court - except, of course, that the council had lots public money to spend and Mr Tierney hasn't. Councils are no better now than they ever were - South Lanarkshire should hang its head in shame.
Keep this in the small claims court - it's a disgrace the council wants to up the anti and in effect bully this man into submission. The Sheriff Court won't deliver any better justice than the small claims court - except, of course, that the council had lots public money to spend and Mr Tierney hasn't. Councils are no better now than they ever were - South Lanarkshire should hang its head in shame.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (18)
