cap n chris
Well-known member
Thanks for the background Popeass1.
Obviously without having full details it's not possible to see how things will pan out for sure but ballpark my hunch is they'll get nowhere with it. It's perhaps worth pointing out that 'no-win, no-fee' is a myth - if you lose, you've still got to pay associated costs (but not legal ones incurred on your side) of both sides - which can easily be into five figures - and if it's a chav this will ruin them, either in terms of creditworthiness or any paltry assets they have (tv, car etc.); there's only no LEGAL fee. If you win,... the legal fee is a significantly greater chunk than you'd normally pay if you pursued a claim without engaging the services of a 'n-w, n-f' outfit. It is more accurate to say it's 'no win, no legal fee'... there are still fees to pay. Check it out.
They certainly have no case against the landowner; they might have a case against a leader if they have written assurances that it's a safe thing to do, all above board etc.. Can't see how there's any recourse to the Quarrymans, either. Best guess is they're a chancer who really hasn't a clue what they've got themselves into, both before and after. Perhaps a harsh lesson in reality will be just the ticket.
Obviously without having full details it's not possible to see how things will pan out for sure but ballpark my hunch is they'll get nowhere with it. It's perhaps worth pointing out that 'no-win, no-fee' is a myth - if you lose, you've still got to pay associated costs (but not legal ones incurred on your side) of both sides - which can easily be into five figures - and if it's a chav this will ruin them, either in terms of creditworthiness or any paltry assets they have (tv, car etc.); there's only no LEGAL fee. If you win,... the legal fee is a significantly greater chunk than you'd normally pay if you pursued a claim without engaging the services of a 'n-w, n-f' outfit. It is more accurate to say it's 'no win, no legal fee'... there are still fees to pay. Check it out.
They certainly have no case against the landowner; they might have a case against a leader if they have written assurances that it's a safe thing to do, all above board etc.. Can't see how there's any recourse to the Quarrymans, either. Best guess is they're a chancer who really hasn't a clue what they've got themselves into, both before and after. Perhaps a harsh lesson in reality will be just the ticket.