Tweet
I've started this new thread as I don't want to hijack :" Can the bank ‘UNCLEAR’ cleared funds?"
On that thread the poster possibly suffered a loss of £35000, but is only claiming £9000 in a attempt to keep the claim on small claim track and so avoid possibility of excessive costs in event of loss.
Regardless of the discussions on that thread about the claim, and the probity of the claimant etc, is it actually allowed to limit one's claim to an amount lower than actual loss sustained in order to either reduce court fees &/or avoid possibility of excessive costs in te event of losing in court.
In the case quoted I brought this point up very early in the discussions, Sharon alluded to it and now it has come to the fore again.
I'm presently helping an acquaintance making a claim. His actual losses total just in excess of £3000. The difference in fees from one side of £3000 to the other is is £390 and he has decided the extra is not worth risking for £50.
The cause of action is "a loss". The amount of loss is of no consequence until he trial is over, and so long as the amount claimed does not exceed the actual loss does it matter?
Re EXC's query regarding making subsequent claims for the balance of actual losses, surely that would not be possible as there had already been a decision over the cause of action ie the "loss", and that could not be reopened?
It seems EXC is suggesting a judge quantifies losses at the beginning of a trial, but surely the trial takes place and losses are quantified afterwards (assuming claimant wins)
Honest, not starting argument but looking for discussion
On that thread the poster possibly suffered a loss of £35000, but is only claiming £9000 in a attempt to keep the claim on small claim track and so avoid possibility of excessive costs in event of loss.
Regardless of the discussions on that thread about the claim, and the probity of the claimant etc, is it actually allowed to limit one's claim to an amount lower than actual loss sustained in order to either reduce court fees &/or avoid possibility of excessive costs in te event of losing in court.
In the case quoted I brought this point up very early in the discussions, Sharon alluded to it and now it has come to the fore again.
I'm presently helping an acquaintance making a claim. His actual losses total just in excess of £3000. The difference in fees from one side of £3000 to the other is is £390 and he has decided the extra is not worth risking for £50.
The cause of action is "a loss". The amount of loss is of no consequence until he trial is over, and so long as the amount claimed does not exceed the actual loss does it matter?
Re EXC's query regarding making subsequent claims for the balance of actual losses, surely that would not be possible as there had already been a decision over the cause of action ie the "loss", and that could not be reopened?
It seems EXC is suggesting a judge quantifies losses at the beginning of a trial, but surely the trial takes place and losses are quantified afterwards (assuming claimant wins)
Honest, not starting argument but looking for discussion
. This made me laugh when I saw it, esp the content of course - an extra warm glow there.
Comment