Defamation rate in Ireland 19 times higher than in England and Wales

[Marsupial]

This tells me that the old ambulance chasers, within our legal profession, have added another string to their bow

All falling under the umbrella of "human rights" - an exciting new area of lucrative enterprise for our bewigged friends. Some of the most successful of them appear to operate on both sides of the border.

 

[Leo]

I makes no sense to settle a case that is without merit? Unless, of course, it's financially expedient in terms of time and attention.

The challenge as I've heard it is a combination of the financial costs on top of the time required of staff, defending a case with little or no merit still costs a lot of money with little prospect of recovering legal costs.

 

[Itchy]

The challenge as I've heard it is a combination of the financial costs on top of the time required of staff, defending a case with little or no merit still costs a lot of money with little prospect of recovering legal costs.

I mean it's certainly a question for society as a whole. What's expedient for a party to an action is not necessarily conducive to a well functioning system (do we each have an ethical/moral duty to society as a whole or do we pursue utilitarianism?). Payout one vexatious claim and another will come down the tracks.

We see the same approach in other areas: Insurance companies paying out inflated claims in order to minimise their own costs (or at least knowing they can recover those costs from the honest policyholder), people convicted of defrauding the state continuing to receive state benefits, convicted criminals not being pursuing for the costs incurred in convicting them or of the damage inflicted during their crimes (convicted of burning out a Garda car during a riot, it's reasonable that you pay for it).

In the case of a vexatious defamation claim against a small shop owner, it's not that the bar is too low in order to bring a claim, it's more a free roll of the dice for someone with nothing to lose. So why address the former (which affects everybody), rather than the latter (which only affects the nefarious)?

 

[Leo]

In the case of a vexatious defamation claim against a small shop owner, it's not that the bar is too low in order to bring a claim, it's more a free roll of the dice for someone with nothing to lose. So why address the former (which affects everybody), rather than the latter (which only affects the nefarious)?

It one of the downsides of a legal system that provides access to all. If you've nothing to lose, you've nothing to lose.

 

[TomEdison]

The whole essence of arbitration is that the arbitrator's decision is final and can only be challenged on a point of law.

I cannot compute a scenario where this is more expensive than a court hearing.

Even in arbitration proceedings, there still has to be an investigation in to the facts, and arguments about the applicable laws. In other words, a trial.

Because arbitrators can proceed with less formality, the trial may be shorter and therefore cheaper. But they can do this because the parties agree to it, because they want a less formal and cheaper proceeding. People can't be compelled to go to arbitration against their agreement, for the reason already mentioned; they have a consitutional right of access to the courts.