Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7216895.stm

I'm pleased for the woman concerned but is this really going to change very much or could it open up a can of worms?

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Mrs A said: "I'm both delighted and relieved that my appeal to the House of Lords has been successful and that I've succeeded in changing a law which will provide others in the future with a means of achieving justice.

"It was this rather than financial gain which motivated me to begin this process two years ago."

My Ass.

:dozey:

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

A tad cynical perhaps??

Apparently there will be safeguards built into the system to ensure that sprurious claims aren't made simply in pursuit of compensation. Also of course there'll be relatively few people who'll have sizeable assets worth pursuing.

As the partner of someone who was sadly involved in 2 personal injury litigation cases I can tell you that for us the financial compensation element such as it was came a very poor second to ensuring that those responsible were held accountable for their actions. What compensation was received we'd gladly have traded in to wind the clocks back.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

:tu: a long time comming, it goes a long way to wiping the smiles off their (the attackers) smug faces!

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Not going to change very much. Let's get this into perspective, all they've done is ruled that judges can exercise discretion in allowing lawsuits to proceed, rather than being bound by hard-and-fast limits set in law on how long you can wait before suing someone for damages. It doesn't make it easier to sue or more likely to win or get more money, Mrs. A could still lose her case, which would be in many ways a great shame, or she could win and be awarded £10k or some similarly insignificant fraction of the rapist's subsequent wealth.

Basically, that's all that's happened today.

It's also a shame that people concentrate on the fact that he won the lottery, which is irrelevant except in showing that fate and chance don't favour nice guys. There were other cases involved, usually people who'd been abused in local authority care, where the question of sudden acquisition of vast sums doesn't arise.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

And this is only for personal injury and death cases, and the court has to take into account the reasons for the delay and the whether the defendant can still reasonably defend the case.

But it's still good news :)

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

been raped have u?

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Do I have to have been to have an opinion?

:rolleyes:

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

no but i think u would change your opinion if u had?

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

For the money or for the justice?

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Seeing as financial gain is not her motivating factor, can we safely assume she will donate all proceeds to charity?

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

She might, but the lawyers on the "no-win, no-fee" basis won't (imho).

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Something I dont really understand about this case, and all the other claim to gain cases.

Fair enough being compensated if you have lost out financially, such as had to take time off work because of it.

But why should anyone expect to be paid if something happens to them which wasnt their fault, such as slipping over in the street or even something as bad as rape.

Say someone is raped, then goes onto sue their attacker and gets X amount payout. Is that money going to make her feel any better? Or will it turn back time?

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

u up for a rape as well? u got a price as well? :rolleyes:

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

I have NO idea what you're on about but if you're fishing for an argument you won't get one from me. It's quite a straightforward question. She has stated the motivation behind this case was not financial which would indicate she is not intending to keep any cash she gets from him, unless she's happy to run the risk of sounding a hypocrite.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Well > jkat Since you did not answer my question re: Money vs Justice...

The way I see it is that the offenders that are concerned here, ie Lotto Rapist etc. They have served thier time in clinck.

OK, what they did was dispicable but they have done thier time and that is that.

Right, know some (possibly) hard up victim thinks - aha! I can have a peice of that pie!

And can now get that peice of teh pie... How rude is that? I mean FFS The guy has paid his debt to society apart from the fact that the lucky git managed to win the lotto.

Gravy train anyone?

Jeez, I mean I am a law abiding citizen (bar a bit of streeto lol) and I get jack ****.

I have every sympathy for those that are unlucky enough to get raped, but this I think is nowt but delayed ambulance chasing.

*dons fireproof suit*

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

u just dont get it do u?

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

You seem to be ignoring the fact that a civil action still has to be brought and won before any compensation may be awarded. As I understand it, it will NOT be possible for just anyone to appear out of the woodwork years after the event, make spurious claims and then launch an action. In fact, as has already been said, the number of people able to benefit from this change will probably be relatively few for a variety of reasons not the least of which will be their unwillingness to live through the trauma they've suffered all over again. Anyone who thinks litigation is an easy route to even easier money really needs to try it.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

You have no idea about the trauma that can last for years from rape and from the sexual abuse of minors many of whom as children may not reveal what has happened to them until they are adults which may take years before they find the courage to tell anyone let alone seek any money.:rolleyes:

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Yes, and in the case of abused youngsters it may be many years before they even realise that what happened to them was indeed abuse.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

It will, actually, but the ruling gives the judge discretion to decide whether it's in the interests of justice to proceed with the case outside the three year limitation. This is much more relevant to people, for example, abused at the age of 10 for whom it's clearly against the interests of justice to force them to launch a legal action by age 13, particularly if they're in the care of the body they're suing, or quite probably have resources or family or legal expertise to fall back on. The Lotto Rapist angle does hide the main point here.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

And since few, if any, judges will proceed with something which isn't in the interests of justice, spurious cases will fail.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

Think so

And Mrs A should now be able to go to court once more to fight for personal compensation - which, if successful, she has pledged to give to charity

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

If she does then good for her.

Re: Landmark Law Lords Ruling
 

And so, amazingly, are the lawyers (from the link above) - excellent.
"DLA Piper now plans to reclaim its legal fees - and the award from the YEP - from Hoare. It, too, plans to donate the money to local charities"