DMaxer wrote:

---

 

Your comments about what lawyers charge is totally inaccurate. 

 

Really! The $40k I paid wasn't monopoly money. It was based on an hourly charge of $500 plus incidentals. I was told that at the outset.

If you reckon I was overcharged maybe I can get a refund!

---

 

-- Edited by montie on Thursday 25th of February 2021 06:49:36 PM

Wouldn't the various authorities such as the AFP have investigators trained for these sorts of cases with appropriate interview techniques? Guilty is guilty but when we see innocent folks get destroyed by the media one has to wonder if there's not a better way.

OK so she is very traumatised and it has taken this long to come forward. Accepted. I can sort of get that, but.... Then why race off to the media and not the police? The media are going to spread it all over every tablet in the country and milk it for every morsel they can squeeze from it, which is exactly what they have done. The police are generally pretty discreet in these sort of cases, so if you are so traumatised, the media is the last people to go to I would have thought. Instead she has tried to crucify two lady ministers, both of whom tried to help her as best they could with their hands tied due to respect for her privacy and her reluctance to make an official complaint. The workplace culture in Federal Parliament obviously needs a very large shake up, but none of the parties are squeaky clean so they need to get together to fix it. However, the alleged rape occurred after hours when neither complainant or perpetrator were meant to be on the premises. It would be interesting to see where that goes, as in normal circumstances they could probably get done for being illegally on premises. I feel a civil suit coming on against the government at the urging of her journo boyfriend to be honest. One has to pose the question, is her motivation truly to seek justice, and in which case I support her doing so, and hope if she was raped, that the alleged rapist gets his just deserts, or is there some other ulterior motive? This case raises more questions than it answers to be frank, and I hope the truth will out eventually.

Greg 1 wrote:

---

... Then why race off to the media and not the police? 

---

 Because the current cultural environment is not going to change if she did what the current system, and supporters of the current system and culture, wants her to do.    Just some of the comments here are evidence of the lack of empathy and absence of support available to women who have sexually assaulted.   Going to the media was her cry for help and the number of dismissive, bullying, and denigrating responses to her "whistle blowing" are ample evidence that a lot of things need to change.

DMaxer wrote:

---

Yes Montie, you were told that at the outset. It must have been a substantial claim against you and you must have been pretty concerned about your position legally otherwise a shrewd intelligent caravan salesman like yourself would have figured that it was easier to save the money you would pay for legal representation and just pay out the other side with a compromised lesser offer.

But it wasn't that way was, it my friend. Otherwise you would not have settled, you would have run the case, won and then had your costs reimbursed. Costs follow the verdict, my friend.

As I said, good stories for around the campfire, late at night after twelve beers when you have finished whinging about the costs of caravan park accommodation.

---

 Geez I hope you get your facts in better order if you are representing a client.

We were the second respondent and as such were unable to defend the not fit for purpose claim against the chassis manufacturer who was the first respondent.

We did not manufacture the chassis.

The claimant was given poor advice by his $500 per hour solicitor and he was the one who applied to the court for mediation which the first respondent declined but the court ordered it.

The $5000 goodwill payment was made by the chassis manufacturer not us and was accepted by the claimant.

Obviously the claimants case failed to prove the vehicle transmission was not fit for purpose.

The only winners in all of this were the solicitors.

I do believe that the claimants solicitor refunded some of his costs for their blunder but I don't know that for a fact. He never had a snowflakes chance in hell of winning and he was told that by some experts but he still opted to take his solicitors advice to proceed.

 

I will add that this should be a lesson for anybody seeking relief under the ACA through the Courts rather than through the relevant Tribunal where no expensive solicitors are involved.

Dmaxer maybe you should open a thread titled "Solicitors costs"....I'm sure it would be a winner!

-- Edited by montie on Friday 26th of February 2021 09:47:27 AM

-- Edited by montie on Friday 26th of February 2021 10:12:22 AM

DMaxer wrote:

---

 

, I don't need to be an apologist for my profession. Anything you would like to say about your occupation?

-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 26th of February 2021 11:53:17 AM

---

 I speak about my occupation all the time on this and other forums and offer advice based on my many years experience in the business. Maybe you should follow my lead and offer free legal advice.

-- Edited by montie on Friday 26th of February 2021 12:12:52 PM

Izabarack, I might seem insensitive and perhaps to a degree I am, but over my lifetime I have learnt that things are not always what they seem on the surface. People will lie to cover up their own involvement in things and this is not just the realm of nasty old blokes. Young women are pretty good at it too. If I was to be really cynical, based on what she has said to the media the scenario could, and I said could, go something like this. She and her work colleague are out for a night of drunken debauchery and decide in their drunken state, that it would be a really funny idea to enter the minister's office and have set on the desk. Having got past security and engaged in their romp, she falls asleep on the couch and her accomplice leaves, unable to wake her. Security discover her during the night with her clothes in disarray but leave her there until morning. Awake in the morning, she then realised in the cold light of day she is in deep ****e. So the rape allegation is her way out. But she does not want her colleague to face charges so she refuses to lodge a formal complaint. At some point in the next two years she tells her new boyfriend who then pushes her to tell the media, and backed into a corner out comes the story, but still she is not wanting to lodge a complaint. Now what I have written above is just a piece of fiction woven around the facts as presented in the media, but you can see why the media should not be the first port of call. The allegations should be investigated by the proper authorities and the courts to test their validity not trialled in the media. As you can see from the story above, anyone can take a few facts and weave an entirely different tale around them. My criticism of this young lady is that she should have lodged her complaint with the police and then down the track gone to the media if she wanted to change the culture in Parliament House. Her very reluctance to have her attacker charged raises serious doubts as to her story in my opinion.

dorian wrote:

---

The problem with the $150K costs is that they probably are not real costs. A fee of $1000 per hour for work done is exorbitant to start with, but there is a double whammy when the lawyers (do we call them solicitors over here?) fudge the hours. Can we really believe that the lawyers did 150 hours of work in defending the case?

The other problem is that lawyers, and therefore judges, mostly come from an exclusively humanities background. Therefore, when they are prosecuting, defending, or adjudicating a technology case, they are often totally ignorant of the subject matter. The various parties then have to waste expensive time teaching their representatives what the case is all about.

For example, I have no idea how a technically ignorant legal profession can determine the outcome of patent litigation. I can't even understand the documents, after they have been encrypted into patent-ese, and I'm an engineer.

There was a recent class action suit in the USA. It was alleged that a manufacturer knowingly produced a defective product, and that this product was replaced under warranty with replacements which were themselves defective. I contacted the plaintiff's legal team and explained that their case would fail as it currently stood. However, I offered them evidence which showed that the company issued a fix for the product (in the form of a firmware update), and that this "fix" was itself defective. Moreover, I was able to prove that this update was never tested before being released. Furthermore, I had long ago devised a simple solution which I submitted to the company's own forum, plus a workaround as an alternative. The problem was that the update called for a payload file with the wrong name. The fix for the "fix" was to change the file name. Some time later the company shut down its forum and deleted all the content. Four years later I downloaded this same update and found that nothing had been done. In fact every user who had attempted to apply this "fix" would have failed.

The class action team ignored my evidence, and basically told me that they didn't need my help (which was free). About a year later they paid for their arrogance and stupidity when the even more ignorant judge threw out their case on a stupid technicality. So the case, which should have been a lay down misere, turned out to be a massive ****-up.

-- Edited by dorian on Friday 26th of February 2021 02:37:14 PM

---

 The 150k would have included the cost of a solicitor and factory representative flying to Qld from Melb for the mediation meeting.

It would also include the cost of an expert opinion on the vehicle transmission by a leading forensic engineer, which was given to the owner before he lodged his claim, and his solicitor inexplicably still advised him to proceed even though the report totally refuted his claim.

DMaxer wrote:

---

More tripe Montie. If his solicitor had been in error in his advice the client would have had a claim against his solicitor in negligence.

He may well have done so but I doubt it....he didn't have enough money to pay our costs so it's unlikely he would have the money for further litigation.

This post started as a topic about an allegation and you and your mate couldn't wait to steer it into a saga of lawyer bashing. It just pains the likes of you that people obtain a high education, are skilled at their job and earn a quid.

Now! Now! No point in getting angry....we all did our 5 years at Uni.  And when it comes to getting bashed it's always just about open season on RV dealers.

Why don't you give us a bit of a rundown on what happens when a van comes into the yard as a trade in and after a few hours detailing goes back out onto the block at an exorbitant mark up. Or how about when a new one arrives, a bit of a clean to get the dust off and then mark it up. Or how about the mark up on spare parts, servicing et al.

Of course we apply a markup and like you we have insurance costs and overheads....we don't whinge about it though.

Dorian, I just can't bring myself to comment on your post. What planet do you live on? Statements and conclusions on topics yo0u have no idea about. Perhaps Montie could give you a job, you would go well there.

-- Edited by DMaxer on Friday 26th of February 2021 03:41:30 PM

---

 

-- Edited by montie on Friday 26th of February 2021 04:03:19 PM

Greg 1 wrote:

---

Izabarack, I might seem insensitive and perhaps to a degree I am, but over my lifetime I have learnt that things are not always what they seem on the surface. People will lie to cover up their own involvement in things and this is not just the realm of nasty old blokes. Young women are pretty good at it too. If I was to be really cynical, based on what she has said to the media the scenario could, and I said could, go something like this. She and her work colleague are out for a night of drunken debauchery and decide in their drunken state, that it would be a really funny idea to enter the minister's office and have set on the desk. Having got past security and engaged in their romp, she falls asleep on the couch and her accomplice leaves, unable to wake her. Security discover her during the night with her clothes in disarray but leave her there until morning. Awake in the morning, she then realised in the cold light of day she is in deep ****e. So the rape allegation is her way out. But she does not want her colleague to face charges so she refuses to lodge a formal complaint. At some point in the next two years she tells her new boyfriend who then pushes her to tell the media, and backed into a corner out comes the story, but still she is not wanting to lodge a complaint. Now what I have written above is just a piece of fiction woven around the facts as presented in the media, but you can see why the media should not be the first port of call. The allegations should be investigated by the proper authorities and the courts to test their validity not trialled in the media. As you can see from the story above, anyone can take a few facts and weave an entirely different tale around them. My criticism of this young lady is that she should have lodged her complaint with the police and then down the track gone to the media if she wanted to change the culture in Parliament House. Her very reluctance to have her attacker charged raises serious doubts as to her story in my opinion.

---

 Great post Greg,but possibly a bit too much logic for some to understand? Cheers

 

dogbox wrote:

---

in the end if he, the alleged rapist, has enough money he could possibly keep appealing till acquitted

---

 Or,horror of horrors,he could even be acquitted! If all the ladies with whom I have had drunken,meaningful,one-night relationships were to succeed with  "rape" accusations,never again would I see the light of day. It seems that there no longer is a presumption of "Innocent until proven guilty",and it now is necessary to defend yourself against possibly spurious claims. Luckily,there never is an ulterior motive with dollar signs involved,is there?Cheers

-- Edited by yobarr on Friday 26th of February 2021 08:14:10 PM

Montie, he went through a process. The police believed there was sufficient evidence to charge him, the lower court thought there was sufficient evidence to commit him to stand trial, the DPP thought there was sufficient evidence to conduct the trial and the judge thought there was evidence to put to the jury for deliberation. This system may get things wrong now and then and that is why we have an appellant jurisdiction. Humans can make errors, trials can be flawed but in most cases they are corrected. 

What is the alternative? Send the brief over to the local caravan centre and let you and the boys give it a cursory once over and the benefit of your collective legal wisdom at smoko?

That is the point you fail to grasp Montie. If the only evidence is an allegation that is thirty years old it goes nowhere. It does not even result in a charge let alone a court appearance. They must have some form of corroborating evidence otherwise there would be malicious prosecution claim resulting in a costs award plus damages.

Big difference in getting off because one is genuinely innocent and getting off because of a technicality