Is the world, or more to the point the UK, going mad?
In today's press there is an article about an architect giving her neighbour free advice about garden landscaping. Unfortunately things didn't turn out too well in the garden and the neighbours have now sued the friend alleging poor advice.
Their lordships are pondering long and hard about the implications of this case and will give judgement in due course.
If it goes the wrong the way and we're not careful then it's the end for free and helpful advice from any mates in the business.
|
No win, no fee arrangements should be banned.
Would immediately cut out a load of this nonsense that is happening
|
>> No win, no fee arrangements should be banned.
justice is open to all; like the Ritz hotel?
|
>> justice is open to all; like the Ritz hotel?
>>
...but if you "go to the law", you get the law, not necessarily justice.....
|
>>justice is open to all
"Justice? - You get justice in the next world, in this world you have the law." (William Gaddis, "A Frolic of His Own" - an hilarious must-read demonstrating the difference.)
|
>> No win, no fee arrangements should be banned.
>> Would immediately cut out a load of this nonsense that is happening
>>
Is your point that restricting access would be a better thing?
Or are you saying that somehow the type of access has some bearing on the decision?
|
>> No win, no fee arrangements should be banned.
>> Would immediately cut out a load of this nonsense that is happening
No suggestion that no win/no fee had any part. Well off people each funding their own case.
Judge has found that claim is justified with damages to be quantified. Case went well beyond advice offered over garden fence, defendant acted as agent, instructing builders etc.
Two personal thoughts:
(a) My CAB induction included VERY clear warning against giving advice outside context of bureau client/ appointment. In office you're insured, going of piste you're not
(b) Chat with a Court Service colleague based in outer NW London - Watford towards Chesham - about number of boundary/neighbour disputes occupying court time. OTOH their fees were subsidising more needy users.
|
>>a) My CAB induction included VERY clear warning against giving advice outside context of bureau client/ appointment. In office you're insured, going off piste you're not
That's a very good point.
And one I would think most professionals are careful of.
|
|
I don't think it's as simple as you state. The Times article needs to be read in full.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Sun 12 Mar 17 at 18:36
|
I'm sure that's true. The principle that once someone starts to act in an active way with some direct control over the course of events, they start to take on some of the obligations and responsibility for their decisions, is already well-established.
I can speak from no professional viewpoint other that that of company director, but I do know that if someone who acts and has influence in a company at a level that is appropriate to that of a director, then they become de facto a director from the point of view of legal responsibility for their actions.
That's probably why doctors are traditionally so reluctant to step forward when the call goes up. Especially doctors of divinity or philosophy :)
The interesting point might be how far that responsibility went if the person was not actually professionally qualified, or only at a lower level or in a different speciality. If the man in the case had been a naval architect but knew a lot about garden landscaping, would he still be liable?
|
>> I don't think it's as simple as you state. The Times article needs to be
>> read in full.
Indeed, if you read the article, and that which it implies, you will find out that the "architect" saw the project as a way to showcase their skills and use it as a reference, there was professional benefit, so there must have been professional and commercial responsibility and hence liability.
|
Architect sued by friend for free 'bad' advice - Bobby
