Personal injury defence

[Manxman]

This: If £400 is the only cost claimed, why is it proposed that the four of you ( you, your builder, their insurer and the waste contractor) pay £1750 each plus the neighbour's legal costs?

Ah. Have I misread or otherwise misunderstood the OP?

I understood him to be saying:

1. that the only "cost" the neighbour was claiming was £400 for replacement spectacles;

2. that the OP had listed four respondents to the claim; and

3. that there was a proposal that "each" of the respondents should pay £1750 plus a contribution to the claimant's legal costs.

Perhaps the neighbour is claiming more than £400 but £400 is the only amount the OP has mentioned with respect to the claim. If the total claim was significantly larger than £400 I'd have expeced the OP to have said so.

I suspect there aren't four named respondents as listed by the OP, but only three: The property owners, the builder and the waste contractor. I think I'd be a bit surprised if the builder's insurer was named in the claim

Given the stated £400 claim I can't understand why there is a proposal for "each" of the respondents (whether two, three or four) to cough up £1750 plus a share of the claimant's costs.

Or have I just totally confused myself?

[islandgirl]

I cannot help but think this is a ruse - admit the glasses and then it is "stress, time off work, ear problems" etc. Totally agree that this person needs some form of compensation and should have asked for it at the time but it is in my view opening a huge can of worms which I would hope the insurers would deal with not me personally

[des8]

As a Personal injury, the claim has been allocated to the fast track, so I imagine there is a substantial claim for general damages (pain & suffering) but special damages are confined to damage to glasses.

The builder's insurers of course are probably pragmatically trying to have the claim split 4 ways between the defenders (house owners are both named + builder + waste contractor) as it will be much cheaper (for them) than having to defend in court.

As ATTICUS said earlier it is possibly in the op's interest to attempt a settlement outside court

[atticus]

Did I say that?

[des8]

Did I say that?

You certainly wrote something along those lines in post 2

[atticus]

This is what I said

... settling now will almost certainly be a better outcome for you than if you take the case to trial and lose...

[DustyDavies]

Thank you all
No response from any other parties regarding reaching an agreement to settle to avoid trial. So we are required to complete a Directions questionnaire which I literally cannot make head nor tail of. I can only find guidance on how to fill this in as a claimant not a defendant. Can anyone point me towards some guidance?? It's been allocated to fast track.....

[des8]

Thank you all
No response from any other parties regarding reaching an agreement to settle to avoid trial. So we are required to complete a Directions questionnaire which I literally cannot make head nor tail of. I can only find guidance on how to fill this in as a claimant not a defendant. Can anyone point me towards some guidance?? It's been allocated to fast track.....

https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/pr...rt28/pd_part28 might help you

[DustyDavies]

If £400 is the only cost claimed, why is it proposed that the four of you ( you, your builder, their insurer and the waste contractor) pay £1750 each plus the neighbour's legal costs?

I don't know why you're furious with your neighbour. If I'd been hit in the circumstances you describe I'd be suing you all as well.

I don't understand why the claimant is pursuing us as well as the other parties. We had no involvement in the accident and bear no responsibility for what happened. We appointed a builder in good faith and the subcontractor they appointed messed up. So why are we included as defendants? It has never made sense to me. It is just presumably to maximise the possibility of a pre-trial settlement. He said at the time he didn't blame us for what happened!!

[atticus]

This is why in one of my earlier posts I said that you should have a defence that you are not vicariously liable or the acts of your independent contractor

[DustyDavies]

We do!

[atticus]

That is good news. Why not be bold and invite the Claimant to consider your defence and discontinue the case against you?

[Huxie]

STORIENDER is a spammer and has been reported.