Dead dog!!

[Glenn UK]

Re: Dead dog!!

I can see that viewpoint Cetelco, however, I don't like the idea that i cannot speak to the registration authorities (something in fact which we have already done) and the RSPCA (again something i have already done) to finalise the issues with them.

In general terms if the defendant wants to ask for confidentiality then my personal feeling is that there should be some consideration for this. I don't actually want anything, id rather be free to know that if i wished to i could talk about it i could without worrying about being sued for confidentiality. I also wonder if it applies to me since i am not the claimant?

It also occurs to me that in the event that this kennels caused suffering to another animal and i found out about it id like to think i would be able to assist too.

Edit: Incidentally from the defendants viewpoint if i spread malicious rumours then they have a remedy at law anyway. Whether they could effectively exercise that right is in my view immaterial, the law gives them that protection so again i see no real risk from the claimant being free to talk about it anyway.

Glenn

Edit again : PS thanks for your views though.

[thephoenix]

Re: Dead dog!!

If it went to court and the defendants lost (which seems that they would) What effect would it have on their license?
Could they lose it? be fined by the RSPCA? It would certainly bring unwanted attention to the business.

Something I believe they want to avoid at all cost's...... hence the offer.

[Glenn UK]

Re: Dead dog!!

I think the offer was made purely on financial grounds, they know that there is a good chance they will lose, no guarantees though, so they need to balance what they might win or lose.

I reckon that even if it went to court it may end up in small claims track so they would not recover their costs.

if it went to fast track then theres a good chance the court would not award them costs on the grounds there was a case to answer and they had not tried to resolve the issues by going to arbitration when we clearly indicated that we would.

There is a new bit of legislation which basically says that you can be guilty of cruelty if you have control over an animal and it suffers and you do not prevent or reduce it.

In my view they did not do this and could be sued.

They are definitely in breach of their licensing terms at least in an administrative sense because i have a copy of the terms and the guidance supporting those terms for their license.

Something the licensing authorities are aware of, although i doubt they will do anything because thats the way it works with LA most of the time.

If we had actually got to court, then its feasible that depending on what the judgement was that they could have been prosecuted under the cruelty legislation and/or had their license revoked.

They still could be prosecuted under the relevant act (which i cannot remember the name of right now).

I think that financially for the insurers it was a sink hole with a good chance they would not get anywhere near their money back even if they won. On this basis they settled, rather than incur more costs pursuing the case.

I don't think it had anything to do with the belief in their clients story or defence, they would of course have tried to win, but in the end its a money thing.

Glenn

[Guest]

Re: Dead dog!!

I can see that viewpoint Cetelco, however, I don't like the idea that i cannot speak to the registration authorities (something in fact which we have already done) and the RSPCA (again something i have already done) to finalise the issues with them.

In general terms if the defendant wants to ask for confidentiality then my personal feeling is that there should be some consideration for this. I don't actually want anything, id rather be free to know that if i wished to i could talk about it i could without worrying about being sued for confidentiality. I also wonder if it applies to me since i am not the claimant?

It also occurs to me that in the event that this kennels caused suffering to another animal and i found out about it id like to think i would be able to assist too.

Edit: Incidentally from the defendants viewpoint if i spread malicious rumours then they have a remedy at law anyway. Whether they could effectively exercise that right is in my view immaterial, the law gives them that protection so again i see no real risk from the claimant being free to talk about it anyway.

Glenn

Edit again : PS thanks for your views though.

Any restriction referred to in a confidentiality agreement cannot apply to any information to the extent that such information is already known to the party to whom it is disclosed. So if you have already given the details of the case to relevant authorities and the RSPCA then any confidentiality agreement is meaningless.

Furthermore, if the information is divulged to the party under the obligation of confidentiality by a third party not itself under any obligation to confidentiality in respect of such information, for example - you, then again any restriction referred to in a confidentiality agreement shall not apply.

I understand what you mean regarding consideration however, but you should understand that it is perfectly ordinary for a defendant, in particular when the settlement is made out of court, to request that a condition of the settlement is that you don't tell anyone.

How about just refusing to agree to that part of the settlement and waiting to see what they do then?

[Glenn UK]

Re: Dead dog!!

Cetelco

thanks for the clarification, we have, emma will sign it sicne she is not really bothered, if just a grumpy old git who likes to have his own way.

Lol

glenn