injury

RULE 4.228 OF THE INSOLVENCY RULES 1986

NOTICE TO THE CREDITORS OF AN INSOLVENT COMPANY OF THE RE-USE OF A PROHIBITED NAME

THE HARLEY MEDICAL CENTRE LIMITED
(Company Number 01728619)
I, Melvin Braham, of 11 Queen Anne Street, London W1G 9LJ was a Director of the above named company on the day it went into administration. I give notice that I am acting and intend to continue to act in one or more of the ways to which Section 216(3) of the Insolvency Act 1986, would apply if the above-maned Company were to go into insolvent liquidation connection with or for the purposes of, the carrying on of the whole or substantially the whole of the business of the above-named Company under the following name: Aesthetic and Cosmetic Surgery Limited trading as the Harley Medical Group

Did you receive a notice from Mr. Melvin Braham, Mr. Pierre Guillot or Ms. Louise Braham, in the terms set out above?

Are you an Irish client of The Harley Medical Group, with PIP breast implants?

What is this notice, you ask?

Read on.

The Insolvency Rules

Under the Rules contained in the UK Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2007, directors of companies such as The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. are obliged to publish a prescribed notice in the London Gazette

and

to notify every creditor of the company whose name and address is known [to the director] or is ascertainable by him on the making of such enquiries as are reasonable in the circumstances.

The Harley Medical Group was a trade mark of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. of 11 Queen Anne St. in London.

The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. went into administration in the UK on 9th November 2012. The administrators sold some or all of the business of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. to another company, Aesthetic and Cosmetic Surgery Ltd.

The “Harley” Notice

On 7th December 2012, Mr. Melvin Braham, Mr. Pierre Guillot and Ms. Louise Braham, all directors of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. and also directors of Aesthetic and Cosmetic Surgery Ltd., published a notice in the London Gazette in the form seen HERE.

The Liquidation of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd t/a The Harley Medical Group

Subsequently, as it happened, The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. went into insolvent liquidation. (It also changed its name to THMC Realisations (2012) Ltd.)

Clearly, the “Harley” notice was intended to comply with the terms of the UK Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2007 (seen HERE).

Did you receive the “Harley” notice?

McGarr Solicitors would like to hear from every Irish client of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. to check the extent of compliance of Mr. Melvin Braham, Mr. Pierre Guillot and Ms. Louise Braham with the UK Insolvency (Amendment) Rules 2007.

EMAIL US!

We look forward to hearing from you by email at info@mcgarrsolicitors.ie

In the UK and Ireland, The Harley Medical Centre Ltd., trading as The Harley Medical Group, was a major seller and distributor of the defective PIP breast implants. The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd is currently before the Irish courts, looking to be put into liquidation. McGarr Solicitors is the only solicitors’ firm that has attended court for Irish PIP victims and argued for their clients’ interests in this application.

The Crime

1. The PIP criminal trial is currently at hearing in France.
2. McGarr solicitors act for a number of women victims of the PIP scandal. The scandal was the distribution and sale of sub-standard silicone breast implants. This post is a partial explanation of the current position of Irish PIP victims and related Irish legal activities.

The Harley Liquidation

1. The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. went into administration and then liquidation (and changed its name). This has all happened in the UK under the insolvency law of that jurisdiction.
2. The administrator promptly sold the business to, it appears, the shareholders of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. and they have continued the business in the same premises using a new company. That company is continuing the use of the trade name The Harley Medical Group. Its directors are the defunct directors of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.
3. There was an exception to the plan; the exception was in Dublin. The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. had a clinic at 5 Herbert Place in Dublin 2. We know this because it said so on its website. There was and is a plaque, effectively saying so, attached to the wall outside 5 Herbert Place. In addition, the contracts signed by Irish Harley customers stated that the contract was with The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.
4. It now appears that the leasehold interest in 5 Herbert Place Dublin 2 was held by another company, The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. Despite its name, this company was formed and registered in the British Virgin Islands.

The Harley Medical Group Dublin Liquidation

1. Now, this company also wishes to be liquidated. It had directors in common with The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. In other words, the two managements were the same.
2. It has chosen to apply for liquidation in Ireland, in the Irish High Court. In doing so it has claimed, in sworn testimony, that it is the entity that carried on the medical business conducted at 5 Herbert St. Dublin 2.
3. This is confusing. It also creates uncertainty; uncertainty as to the identity of the corporate body answerable to Irish Harley PIP victims.
4. Because The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. made this claim to the High Court, the court directed that McGarr Solicitors (and other firms also) be put on notice of the petition to wind up The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. McGarr Solicitors act for a number of Irish Harley PIP victims.

The Opposition to the Harley Dublin Liquidation

1. McGarr Solicitors have opposed the making of a winding up order for The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd.
2. In the UK, persons such as Harley PIP victims may, under UK law, apply to enforce their claims against any relevant insurance company carrying the Harley risk. This is not the case in Ireland.
3. So, if there is insurance cover for claims such as the PIP claims, and if each victim can prove damage and loss, it would be important to be able to make a claim against that insurer of Harley.
   
4. But which Harley would be the insured Harley? This question illustrates the damaging effect of the claim of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. Its claim that it is the company that sold and fitted defective breast implants to Irish women at least potentially undermines the right of those women to claim against the UK insurer of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.
5. As it happens, the claimed, indeed assumed, “right” of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. to be wound up by the Irish courts is not obvious. It is not obvious because Irish law includes EU law and under the relevant EU law the available evidence shows that the place where The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. might more properly be liquidated is the UK and not Ireland.
6. The available evidence shows, for instance, that the headed notepaper of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. recited that it had nineteen clinics, eighteen of which were in the UK. Oddly, they appear to be the same clinics that The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. had.
7. As it further happened, the lawyers for The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd., in submitting the petition to wind up The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. denied that the EU insolvency regulation applied to The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. and its petition. McGarr Solicitors disagree. We say the Regulation applies. We say that the available evidence establishes where the “centre of main interests” (“COMI”) for The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. is, and its COMI is in the UK. Consequently, we say, the Irish high court does not have jurisdiction to wind up The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. in “main proceedings”. That privilege lies with the UK courts. (Consequently, Irish PIP victims would then have the benefit of UK law and would be able to press any necessary claims against the insurance companies of The Harley Medical Group (Ireland) Ltd. as well as the claims against the insurers of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd.).
8. These are the questions now being decided by the Irish High court. Judgment is expected in about a week.
9. Meanwhile, we are continuing our investigations of the insurance cover bought by The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. We are doing this through correspondence with the liquidator of The Harley Medical Centre Ltd. Currently we believe that company was insured against claims such as those of Irish PIP victims. We have identified what we believe is the policy and the insurer that carried that risk

Modern people, sportsmen/women excepted, are most at risk of serious injury when travelling on the road. The energy bundled in a motor car, or other vehicle, is considerable. If that energy is suddenly blocked, which is what happens in a typical car accident, it must go somewhere and, unfortunately, it sometimes goes into us. Then you are injured and the nature and extent of that injury is determined by chance.

Make no mistake; as a society, we have planned these accidents. Otherwise we would prohibit such forms of travel. Instead, we build lots of roads and we promote the use and sale of motor cars.

In this sense, it is a misnomer, to call these events “accidents”.

Take a circus, or theatre, knife-thrower.  If the knife thrower “accidentally” throws the knife and stabs his (typically) lovely assistant in the heart, we expect that the police will arrest him and that he will be convicted of a crime. We reject the idea that this is an accident. His implied position, that his only fault lies in that last unintended lapse in his wrist, is rejected.

We know that he arranged everything and we are reasonable in considering that, perhaps, or even probably, he had no lapse whatever in his wrist and intended the injury/death.

It is, among other things, this knowledge of a social responsibility for road traffic accidents that we see expressed in the fact of a Government “4^th Road Safety Strategy” or that the EU is holding a “Road Transport Safety Conference on Serious Injuries” in Dublin.

It is a fact, and we should know it, that, as a society, we can suffer mental aberration on these matters. (“Mental aberration” is a polite term for madness).

I do not just mean politicians’ proposals for Irish farmers to be permitted to drink and drive.

I do not just mean politicians claiming that workers allegedly neglecting road safety be allowed to get on with the job and be freed from “red tape”.

I mean it is a form of mental illness, hypocrisy certainly, to plan for injuries to happen and to claim, in the Constitution, that the State will vindicate the person (meaning bodily integrity) of citizens (and others) and then to establish a statutory body (the Injuries Board, a.k.a., the Personal Injuries Assessment Board) (and maintain it) that seeks to ensure the lowest possible level of success in delivering compensation to those injured persons, and to go further; to shrink the window of opportunity for the injured person to effectively make a claim for that compensation to the inadequate time of two years.

In fact, to term all of this “madness” is politeness.

We should remember that we were not always as “mad” as we currently are. We have a “legal system” that includes a cohort of persons intent on overcoming the State’s lunacy.When it comes to car accidents solicitors (and barristers) are those working for the common good. The persons who intentionally hobbled them in doing what they try to do, namely, vindicate the bodily integrity of road accident and other personal injury victims, cannot be categorised as mad. They are simply working against the common good.

The Injuries Board is also called the Personal Injuries Assessment Board. It was established by statute in 2003.

Every person wishing to recover compensation for a personal injury inflicted by wrongdoers must first apply to the Injuries Board for an assessment of the value of the claim.

The Board has issued an article today (26^th March 2013) and Patricia Byron, Chief Executive, went on Morning Ireland for an interview.

The upshot of the article and the interview is this; personal injury claims are increasing and this is bad.

This sounds like the resurrection of the jibe about “Compo Culture”. That jibe was the cry of persons who wished to deny to injured persons their rightful compensation when they were injured by the wrongful acts of others.

Those persons were successful in their campaigning because they had political friends in high places. The establishment of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board was one of their achievements.

Another was the shortening of the time within which an injured person had to issue proceedings before becoming statue barred from doing so. The time was shortened from three years to two years. (One politician wanted to drop it to one year).

Now the Injuries Board is asserting something is happening that it says is undesirable; that people are being educated to make claims for personal injury.

This is a surprising development. The Personal Injuries Assessment Board has a budget for advertising. Any reasonable person would think that it was part of the job of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board to educate injured persons to make claims for personal injury and to do so to the Board. Clearly, the Board does not think so. It fully approves of the restrictions on solicitors to advertise about personal injury claims. It wants that extended to others; it says those others are “claims agencies”.

Here are some facts:

1. PIAB are precluded from examining liability, but do get information on the facts of accidents. if those facts are not credible or reliable, PIAB can decline assessment;
2. In addition, respondents can and do decline assessment of false claims;
3. Consequently, piab assessments are of valid claims;

What public official can claim to be reasonable when decrying a claimed increase in PIAB claims? These claimants have been injured and want and deserve compensation.

The explanation is this; PIAB is biased against injured claimants.

1. It wishes to leave those persons in ignorance of their rights. (Patricia Byron; RTE’s “Morning Ireland” – 26/3/2013). Ms. Byron specifically complained in that interview that “the thought is being put in their mind”.
2. PIAB charges claimants for an assessment, but can, and does, relieve respondents (wrongdoers) of their obligation to pay, or even to submit to the PIAB system, before making an assessment (or, as should happen, giving the claimant an authorisation to go to court). (See Section 14 (b) of The Personal Injuries Assessment Board Act 2003).

One in three accidents at work occurs in connection with “manual handling”.

Employers owe a legal duty of care to their employees. The duty of care includes taking reasonable steps to ensure the health and safety of employees and to avoid accidents at work. The precise terms of the duty of care may be found in the law of negligence or it may be found in a statute, as a precise legal rule.

In the case of the obligation to avoid injury through manual handling, a duty of care is found in the law of negligence and in the provisions of The Safety, Health and Welfare at Work (General Application) Regulations 2007.

Manual handling includes lifting, pushing, pulling or turning weights or objects. It includes doing these things to people. Nurses are at considerable risk of injury from this cause.

See the advice on the topic from the Health and Safety Authority HERE.

In principle, an employer is obliged to provide mechanical equipment to execute manual handling operations. Manual handling by the worker personally is to be avoided where possible. Of course, the injury may not be to the back; it may affect the arm or shoulder or legs.

The risks in manual handling are known; they arise from loads that are too heavy; too large; difficult to grasp; unbalanced or unstable; difficult to reach, or of a shape or size that obscures the worker’s view.

Perfect justice does not exist. When a person is injured, by the fault of another, only a money payment is available in law to compensate him or her. This inadequacy is unavoidable. Recently, in Ireland, a generation of politicians, civil servants and some lawyers, decided to trade even this inadequacy to further their prospects and careers. They promoted the interests of the defence in personal injury claims, over the interests of the injured plaintiff and some still do so.

They were the least likely persons to care about the plaintiff in Hu -v- Duleek Formwork Ltd & Anor [2013 IEHC 50; every generation of Irish politician for eighty years had, in principle, cared nothing for that plaintiff.

It is imperative that this stop now. Even the lowest common denominator says so.

Think only of what John Donne, the English poet, wrote in 1623, in Meditation XVII (Nunc Lento Sonitu Dicunt, Morieris);

“No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend’s or of thine own were: any man’s death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind, and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.”

We are rightly worried about our beef burgers. The supposed international criminal conspiracy undermining the meat industry is easily located; it is the meat industry. But the meat industry is not unique.

Consider our bread. We have been suspicious about it for a long time. When white bread was invented or introduced it was popular with the rich; they felt more confident that they were not eating bread contaminated with mouse droppings or insects or their body parts. (Bleached excrement and beetle parts are OK?)

Then the rich became suspicious about white bread. It was of lower nutritional value. Indeed, all mass produced bread is of lesser value than homemade or artisan made bread.

These issues are sub-sets of a larger issue: we inhabit one environment, much of it engineered. Lots of things can go wrong and if one does many people will be affected.

The general legal principle (the law of negligence) means that the person or persons who engineer the environment will be answerable for the consequences when things go wrong (central bankers and politicians, generally, excepted).

We have tried to make some of those “engineers” more readily answerable for the hazards of parts of that environment.

Employers come to mind.

See HERE  for the advice from the UK Health and Safety Executive to employers about safeguarding employees (and others, partially) from infectious agents.

Some of the “engineers” are builders and we have recent reason to think about walls and the building of them. In Cowan v GAA and McInerney & Son Ltd. [1991] 1 IR 389 the court heard that the plaintiff, a spectator, was injured when part of a wall collapsed on him at Croke Park in 1985. The part of the wall not collapsed had dowels or rods in it; the collapsed part did not. The court inferred that the specification for the wall required rods in every part and therefore the second defendant was liable. The first defendant was also liable because it should have reviewed the safety of its premises with a general structural examination following two notable disasters in foreign public stadia in 1985

The Health and Safety Authority is a good institution but an odd one. It was established under the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Act 2005. It has as its central purpose, as recited in Section 34 of that Act,

“to promote, encourage and foster the prevention of accidents, dangerous occurrences and personal injury at work in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions”

So, oddly enough, when some customers were killed and injured in the Connacht Gold shop in Longford, the Health and Safety Authority, as it has done before, stretched its remit to investigate the incident. Actually, that is an overstatement; at least one employee was injured in the incident.

The most notable case of the Health and Safety Authority extending its remit (to the benefit of all) was the road accident in May 2005 in which five schoolgirls died when a Bus Eireann bus crashed in a single vehicle accident.

The Authority prosecuted Bus Eireann, Meath County Council and a motor service company for the accident. The anti-braking system on the bus was disabled. The motor service company noted this and left it like that. The county council commenced roadworks at the place of the accident without making a safety plan. These circumstances, mostly the disabling of the ABS, resulted in the accident.

The presence of the bus driver, a Bus Eireann employee, made the bus a workplace and conferred jurisdiction on the Health and Safety Authority.

It would be a good idea to make the jurisdiction of the Health and Safety Authority general and not simply limited to places of work.

It is also time to reform the law on liability of occupiers of premises as laid down in the Occupiers Liability Act 1995.

Each relevant day the Legal Diary carries this message;

“With effect from Thursday the 1^st December 2011 the following arrangements will apply to all cases listed in the Dublin Personal Injuries List. Cases not assigned to a judge for hearing on the day on which they are listed will roll over from day to day until the end of that week. Any cases not reached or commenced at the end of a week will be dropped from the list and will require, in due course, an application to be made for a new hearing date in the usual manner. All Specially Fixed cases and cases afforded priority will retain priority over other cases and will be assigned for hearing in the order in which they appear in the list. All other cases will be assigned for hearing at random each day and not in the sequence in which they appear in the list….. Parties must notify the Court if an Action is likely to take more than four days for hearing.”

The trial of any High Court personal injury action is a complicated project. Like all cases, it is a contest between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In some cases much will have been agreed or conceded; in others everything will be in issue.

The trial must be run in accordance with the rules of evidence. So, in the absence of agreement, a Plaintiff must prove the injury and its extent and consequences and that the Defendant caused it. The second of those issues is the liability issue, the first is the quantum issue. Sometimes the quantum issue is a liability issue; the Defendant may not dispute that the Plaintiff is suffering some health problem but may dispute that the Defendant caused the health problem.

In these circumstances the Plaintiff will have to bring his/her doctors to court to give evidence and be cross-examined. (Of course, the Plaintiff will also be giving evidence of, at a minimum, his/her injuries.)

Doctors are busy people, some more than others. A doctor may be habitually in surgery, working long and erratic hours. Nonetheless, when requested to attend court to affirm the contents of a medical report, the doctor has a professional duty to attend.

But when? The quoted notice sets out the position; no ordinary personal injury case listed for hearing in the High Court is assured a hearing, not to speak of a hearing date. But, the Plaintiff must turn up on the date the case is listed. The Plaintiff must be ready to prove the case. Then the court system fails the Plaintiff. There are no judges available to take any of the listed cases. Even if there is a judge, each case is put into a lottery to see which case(s) will go the available judge(s).

Not to worry, there is always tomorrow. Indeed, but what about the witnesses? They presumably made arrangements to drop work promptly on getting the call from the Plaintiff’s solicitor and go to court in accordance with some scheduling scheme of very delicate construction (because it is difficult to estimate for how long a prior witness will be giving evidence).

And what of the Plaintiff and his/her supporters/relations? They have to put their employment on hold. But read the notice; the case will roll over from day to day to the end of the week. So the time out from ordinary mundane life lasts just a week (less one day; Monday is exempt from trials).

Who pays for these waiting days? The Plaintiff must pay, because the Defendant will not be obliged to pay for the delay. It was, after all, generated by the Courts Service, you might think.

In the view of this writer you would be wrong. It is wrong to think that every personal injury action must have a trial. This is impossible; there are not enough court resources (judges, courtrooms etc.) to deliver this in fact.  So, the system must be one that achieves settlements acceptable to Plaintiffs and Defendants. A system which establishes principles of liability, and quantum values, is the required system. If a Defendant knows that the system will deliver a judgment for the Plaintiff and knows what the compensation for the Plaintiff is likely to be only two issues remain to be vouchsafed; that the costs will increase with the passing of time and that those costs will have to be met by the Defendant.

That is the system that currently is missing in the Irish High Court and that explains the notice in the Legal Diary.

Our Ref: EMcG            Your Ref;                                    8^th October 2012

Alan Shatter TD

Minister for Justice and Law Reform

St. Stephen’s Green

Dublin 2

Re: Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011

Dear Minister,

I am writing this open letter to you about one element of your proposed legislation, the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011. That element is the errors in the Bill, relating to legal costs.

What is wrong with your Bill, relating to legal costs? Well, it correctly assumes that some reform is needed in the area. Ever since early Victorian times, a solicitor has had obstacles put in his/her way to recover legal costs. You already know of those obstacles. Allied to that, the calculation of legal costs has been rendered so abstruse that even an expert like yourself has fallen foul of the rules applying to their calculation. See the judgment of the High Court in Gallagher, Shatter v De Valera (1983) HERE.

I do not think that your expertise has been improved with the passage of time since that judgment. You were wrong then and you are wrong now, for different reasons.

So, what IS wrong with your Bill?

1.   Litigation is expensive. Nothing in your Bill will change that. Of course, your Bill may reduce legal costs from a category of “very expensive” to “expensive”, but it will not make those costs “affordable”.

2.   Worse than that, the Bill ignores reality. It assumes that, in every litigation case, the solicitor’s client pays his or her legal costs. You and I know that that is not the norm.

3.   In Ireland, and the UK, the judiciary, generally, follow a practice of awarding costs of the action to the victor.

4.   This is a two edged sword. It makes litigation a very risky business; the costs, if you lose, are high. On the other hand, it encourages certain forms of litigation. It encourages victims of abuse of power to challenge their abuse. I am not just referring to abuse of power by office holders like yourself; I include abuses by people who have more money than the victim. It is easy to dominate people who lack the resources to fight back, particularly in a society like ours where, rightly, we insist that disputes are to be settled only in a court system and not by direct action.

5.   Encouragement is not sufficient to deliver justice; for that, a victim also needs help from a lawyer or lawyers. If that help is not forthcoming the encouragement is a disservice. The victim might become a litigant without representation (a “lay litigant”). (There are more and more lay litigants appearing in the court system nowadays. They represent a serious problem for the courts, not least because a case with such a litigant takes much longer than otherwise).

6.   A litigant, without representation by a lawyer, is gambling on winning and is increasing the chances of losing. At the same time the litigant is likely to suffer very high levels of stress.

7.   Your Bill, overall, is likely to increase the number of lay litigants.

8.   That fact alone is an indictment of you. It should be your primary duty to deliver justice to the citizens and residents of Ireland. The place where they get that justice is in court and you should facilitate that court justice. The major problem in this area is a lack of proper civil legal aid. A lay litigant is not a match for an opponent with legal representation. In short, the court system cannot run correctly without lawyers.

9.   You and your predecessors have had your work done for you by Ireland’s lawyers. By “work”, I mean discharging your primary duty. Because the courts will award costs to successful plaintiffs Ireland’s lawyers consistently act for indigent plaintiffs who are victims of abuse of power. The plaintiffs are the clients of the lawyers, but they are clients who, generally, do not pay their own lawyer. Those lawyers assess and filter the injustices in our society and advance claims in court for people who otherwise would suffer injustice without redress. This “system” is inefficient. Practising lawyers cannot undermine their livelihood by taking all such cases on a “deferred fees” basis. They inevitably select those with the best chance of success. (They are the “marginal” cases beloved of economists.)

10.   Your Bill fails to acknowledge this. Worse, it pretends that no such activity takes place. It pretends that you are the defender of those plaintiffs as they “pay” for those legal services.

11.   The State has established, nominally, a system of civil legal aid. In practice that delivers, very slowly, legal services only to indigent family law litigants. Nobody knows this better than you; your livelihood, as a lawyer, has been derived from family law litigation representing persons who do not qualify for legal aid.

12.   Who, then are the beneficiaries of your Bill’s provisions relating to legal costs? The litigants who lose are the beneficiaries.

13.   Who are the litigants who lose? Ironically, lay litigants are, generally, losers, but the big losers are the companies in Ireland’s insurance industry, and, on occasion, the State. These are the most litigious parties in Ireland’s court system. It is inevitable, particularly in the case of the insurance companies, that they will lose. They are contractually obliged to indemnify their customers when claims are made against the customers. They, generally, cannot decline indemnity just because the customers’ actions are or were egregious and inflicted loss, injury and damage on innocent plaintiffs.

14.   So, they should settle those claims. But they do not. At least, they do not settle enough of them. There are reasons for this, but this is not the moment to canvass those, disparate, reasons.

15.   There is one reason worth mentioning; sometimes the insurance company or even its insured, calculate that the victim plaintiff is vulnerable to pressure. The available pressure to apply is the stress generated by litigation. Litigation and its oppressive costs are weapons in the contest between plaintiffs and defendants.

16.   Your Bill is a contribution to that contest. You have weighed in on the side of the defendants and, consequently, will drive more injured  victims beyond the “margin”.

Yours faithfully,

McGarr Solicitors