But the issue is not the damages it is the fact she had far better council than he did, if he had any, it's all the court costs, solicitors & barrister fees which are his problem, but as somebody put higher up, how the costs can amount to £100K is beyond comprehension to me.
Edit:- On the fundraising page they are only after £21K so where the £100K came from is anybodies guess, unless it's called journalistic license
In the
GoFundMe page for Mr Hazeldean, it says:
"
£4,300 for the compensation, payable in 14 days.
£10,000 to cover the pedestrian's legal fees, payable in 21 days (this may increase when the final cost award is declared as they are seeking around £100,000 in costs - but £10,000 was the amount indicated by the judge).
£7,000 to cover Robert's own legal fees."
Mr. Hazeldean's
solicitor's statement on the status of costs is worthy of note:
"
The Personal Injury team is acting for Mr Robert Hazeldean in defending a claim brought against him by Gemma Brushett.
Unfortunately, Mr Hazeldean had not felt able to instruct solicitors at the outset due to costs. He therefore tried to deal with the case as a litigant in person. The Claimant took advantage of this and has now sought almost £100,000 in costs. We are strongly resisting this as a total abuse of process, and are pleased to report that the court has listed this matter for a third occasion. The court has ordered that the Claimant pays our client’s costs of this third hearing.
Emma Farrell, head of the Personal Injury team, said; “If Mr Hazeldean had been insured, the Claimant’s legal costs would have been limited to a mere £6,690. If he had come to us sooner, we would have advised him to enter a counterclaim given that he has been left with permanent scarring, both physically and mentally He would then have had protection under the law against a large costs order.”
The judge is clearly unhappy with Ms Brushett racking up disproportionate "costs" of c£100,000 unreasonably under the circumstance (vs £10,000 indicated by the judge). If she proceeds the way it seems to be going, chance is that most if not all the excess claimed will be rejected, with shortfall resulting may or may not be covered by her insurer. If not, she might have to eat some/all herself, depending on prior agreement between her and her lawyers. Additionally, her "damages" awarded, which is merely £4300 (presumably 50% of £8600 to account for 50:50 blame allocation), is going to be decimated by his lawyers' costs at the third hearing.
Hence it is far too early to say whether Ms Brushett will end up with anything. If not, it would be poetic justice for Ms Brushett, imho.
Consequently, it is also too early to say if she had/has "better" counsel.
.
