How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • Go back-and-forth until satisfied
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask JimLawyer Your Own Question
JimLawyer
JimLawyer, Solicitor
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 6531
Experience:  Senior Associate Solicitor
97337639
Type Your Law Question Here...
JimLawyer is online now

Since they’ve lied, denied everything, and only when app to

This answer was rated:

Hi Jim, Since they’ve lied, denied everything, and only when app to strike out was accepted by court (and not thrown out - I assume there was a chance the court would have put it in the bin if there had been nothing substantial in there??? Please confirm) only now are they coming like ‘oh listen I’m so nice and I want us all to get this sorted out, they now want to meet and apparently settle.What would you do? Which settlement process would you go down? What would be your tactics?Bear in mind I’ve been through a horrible couple of years, and in my view with this, it literally can’t get any worse. If they bankrupt me they bankrupt hey ho.So I’m not in a real panic to settle, it would just be nice I guess.

If they are now talking about discussions to settle then fine - the court expects the parties to do this in any event so to unreasonably refuse may not look good in the eyes of the court.

It shows a weakness on their part though as clearly they have changed their tune and probably realise the risks they face if they do not now settle. I would propose a JSM (joint settlement meeting) at a venue (their law firm's offices or somewhere more neutral). A JSM is very expensive for them as if they use a lawyer, it is a full day of a lawyer's time. If they want to meet in person this is the best way forwards in my view as it puts even more pressure on them to settle.

Does this clarify?

Customer: replied 7 days ago.
Thank you yes.
Customer: replied 7 days ago.
I may get them to come to me. Would it be advantageous or disadvantageous for me to have their lawyers present?

If they are represented then their lawyer will be present, yes. You could have someone with you too if you wanted - https://www.absolutebarrister.com or http://www.lpc-law.co.uk could both provide a lawyer for you

I hope this helps – if you can please rate the answer by clicking the 5 stars (the top of your screen & then click “submit”), I can answer follow up Q&A's at no extra charge and I will be credited for helping you today.

Many thanks,

Jim

JimLawyer and 4 other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 7 days ago.
Hi, I don't know if you remember me from yesterday - I was the one who was accusing you of going to the shop and stealing an apple, then I sacked you for being gay and disabled! It's funny the things that come straight in your head on the spot when your mind goes blank. :)

So I am litigating in person and they want to meet outside of lawyers.

If I meet them, would it be better or worse for me if their lawyers were there? I am naturally assuming it would be worse but please clarify.

(I know you said I shouldn't meet them at all yesterday. You maybe know a bit more about the situation now, so does that still stand?)

Thanks.
They won’t be allowed to settle without their lawyers being present. As they are legally represented. Having said that if they want to do it without their lawyer then fine and yoi get a better result (lawyers have a job to negotiate hard and do the best job for their client)
Customer: replied 7 days ago.
OK thank you.
Customer: replied 5 days ago.
Thank you! One final thing: I have an additional piece of evidence proving they have lied and I’m writing to them and the court about it. Can I say: “unless you reply by 4pm on *7 days from now* I will assume you have admitted that this was a false statement and accept liability for the consequences of what really happened’ (put more professionally). Or will that not stand up?

No, as you are making an assumption which is not enough to prove a lie or fraud - you can say instead :

“unless you reply by 4pm on *7 days from now* I will invite the court to draw adverse inferences from this additional piece of evidence’

Customer: replied 5 days ago.
TOTALLY AMAZING!! Thank you! I’d ask a new question but I can’t ��
Customer: replied 3 days ago.
Hi Jim, sorry to interrupt! Right at the start you said I should tell their lawyers about them wanting to meet outside of them. Can I ask is this actually law/will I be penalised in court if I don’t tell the lawyers they’ve contacted me directly? Thank you!
No, not at all. It’s not you who would risk breaching the agreement with a lawyer - it’s your opponent. There’s no law against it. You don’t have to tell the lawyers - if they found out they’d just terminate their agreement with your opponent who would then have to find another lawyer (and they pay their previous lawyer’s bill).
Customer: replied 3 days ago.
Thank you as it’s all extremely confusing and to be honest adding to my stress levels �� i suggested they meet in my local pub and asked them to confirm they wouldn’t secretly record it and all conversations without prejudice. They have now said they want to mediate without lawyers still. Jim they caused huge psychological distress, I’m on maximum antidepressants, and it’s just not good. I only trust the court at this stage and I don’t know what to do
I would keep it official and go through their lawyers. As they’re represented you should only contact their lawyer (not your opponent directly).
Customer: replied 3 days ago.
You are such a star thank you so very much it’s really getting me down. Thing is the lawyers are like Rottweilers, (not mentioning names but they stopped the prime minister suspending parliament) so I either deal with opponent directly or them. Rock and a hard place hey?