Even the loser-pays principle wasn’t enough to shield 78-year-old backyard gardener Vincenzo Tavernese of Hornsby, New South Wales, from a far-fetched claim by litigious neighbors claiming injury from the pesticides he used. “The growing popularity of no-win, no-fee law [in Australia] has led to an increase in litigation with little downside for the losing plaintiff. It has been a major driver of the liability crisis.” (Miranda Devine, “Don’t blame me, I’m just the lawyer” (opinion), Sydney Morning Herald, Mar. 4). The article drew responses in the form of letters that appeared in the SMH (one of which asserts that defendant Tavernese had the right to seek a costs security order in the litigation requiring the plaintiffs to show an ability to pay his fees if unsuccessful); a response by Ian Harrison SC defending contingency fees; and a discussion on the Slattsnews blog.
Oz: a sued gardener’s plight
Even the loser-pays principle wasn’t enough to shield 78-year-old backyard gardener Vincenzo Tavernese of Hornsby, New South Wales, from a far-fetched claim by litigious neighbors claiming injury from the pesticides he used. “The growing popularity of no-win, no-fee law [in Australia] has led to an increase in litigation with little downside for the losing plaintiff. […]
Comments are closed.