Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print
Court rules against Queensland taxis (Read 3786 times)
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #90 - May 5th, 2020 at 11:19am
 
freediver wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:17am:
Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.


More lies.  Or, perhaps you actually did mean perhaps and are just musing out loud for the Hell of it.  I pestered no-one to pursue anything.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #91 - May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am
 
John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am:
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am:
he did suggest terms that cost them money.


I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed




mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #92 - May 5th, 2020 at 11:43am
 
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am:
John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am:
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am:
he did suggest terms that cost them money.


I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed




mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?


It's a bit like Pell, cods.  You have not lost the War after merely losing the opening skirmish.  Of course, it would have been better for the Cabbies if we had won that skirmish, but fact is, we didn't.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #93 - May 5th, 2020 at 11:48am
 
Aussie wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:43am:
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am:
John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am:
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am:
he did suggest terms that cost them money.


I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed




mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?


It's a bit like Pell, cods.  You have not lost the War after merely losing the opening skirmish.  Of course, it would have been better for the Cabbies if we had won that skirmish, but fact is, we didn't.



yes I get that aussie   and I am with you on this one....I will be interested to know why they got thrown out.....

I presume as you are part of the skirmish you will know why.......let face it   for it to go further it will end up costing more if your lose the next round ...I wish all you cabbies luck...you being aware of how fickle the law can be....I guess you will need it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #94 - May 5th, 2020 at 12:11pm
 
When I have read the 50 pages of complexities and understood them, I shall attempt to nutshell it here, but I am not convinced it will do anything other than give the 'Effendis' of this World more ammo to be ignorant Monday quarterbacks.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #95 - May 5th, 2020 at 1:00pm
 
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am:
John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am:
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am:
he did suggest terms that cost them money.


I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed




mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?


The lawyers will typically advise you on what what they think your chances are cods. I don't know about this case in particular because Aussie hasn't said, but these sorts of cases are often taken on a 'no win, no pay' type policy. Lawyers won't even take the case if they don't think it will win. If they win they take a percentage of the win. That still doesn't guarantee you a win just because they've taken a case.

One thing you can bet is that in the meeting of owners, many options would have been thrown in the ring, by many owners, not just by Aussie. It's then up to the lawyers to advise on what path they think will have the best chance. I suspect that if the lawyers had said Aussies suggestions were unlikely to succeed, none of the other owners would have voted to go down that path. Contrary to FD's stupidity, people don't often throw good money after bad. Aussie would have been one vote amongst many.

Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #96 - May 5th, 2020 at 1:12pm
 
Aussie wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:19am:
freediver wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:17am:
Perhaps Aussie is saying they would have obviously thought of the idea, but not given it any serious consideration given how bad the idea was - that is, until Aussie came along and pestered them to pursue it, offering them a pile of his friend's money.


More lies.  Or, perhaps you actually did mean perhaps and are just musing out loud for the Hell of it.  I pestered no-one to pursue anything.


I am musing because we are attempting to make sense of what you said - that the real lawyers would have thought of it on their own, but not considered it.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #97 - May 5th, 2020 at 1:21pm
 
freediver wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 1:12pm:
because we are attemptin



who's we?
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #98 - May 5th, 2020 at 1:24pm
 
I reckon you could figure that one out for yourself John.
Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #99 - May 5th, 2020 at 1:31pm
 
freediver wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 1:24pm:
I reckon you could figure that one out for yourself John.


Yes, and I say the answer is.... ~ This 'we' is just you Effendi, ~ you grandstanding when my sole point was that an idea I had about the legal situation was (right now) found to be wrong.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Aussie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 37678
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #100 - May 5th, 2020 at 1:49pm
 
Quote:
We have received numerous telephone calls and emails from various member of our plaintiffs’ group regarding the decision of the Court on 1 May 2020 in which the Court gave judgment in favour of the defendant State in relation to the claims for equitable relief and breach of contract, and in which the Court granted leave for the plaintiffs to replead and thereby clarify the claim in those paragraphs relating to the Australian Consumer Law issues

You will recall that we said at the outset that this claim was somewhat novel, albeit the principles of law are relatively established ( save that the law relating to Estoppel/ equitable relief is not totally settled), and that it was likely that we would suffer a setback or two in the Queensland Supreme Court.

Our preliminary reading of the judgment made by his Honour Justice Bradley on 1 May 2020 is that it lengthy and detailed but on my reading of the judgment, it appears to be replete with contradictions, errors and misstatement of law, and accordingly it should be appealed.

It is my experience that the views expressed by one judge can often differ from the views and opinions of the judges in a Court of Appeal. If a Court of Appeal considers the judgment to be in error and accordingly is unsafe and/or wrong, it can set the judgment aside.

For the above reasons, we are examining the judgment in detail with view to filing a Notice of Appeal against that part of the judgment concerning the equitable relief and contract issues.

Equitable relief is the Estoppel issue, and is concerned with fairness and justice, as distinct from “black letter law” ( such as is the case with contract).

It is one thing to find fault and errors in a judgment. It is quite another thing to draft a Notice of Appeal, which must be confined to errors of law, and must be accurately pleaded and argued.

For the above reason we will not be in a position to provide you with a further, detailed analysis and grounds for appeal at this time, however, we have 28 days from the date of the judgment within which to file an serve any notice of appeal.

We will update you all through the website with developments and when the issues concerning the proposed appeal become more apparent.

Meantime: "Nil bastardum carborundum ! “


Thanks and kind regards,


This is of no surprise, and it will be of no surprise to the Qld Government, so I am happy to post it.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
freediver
Gold Member
*****
Offline


www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 47043
At my desk.
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #101 - May 5th, 2020 at 2:20pm
 
I suppose this is not as bad as when Aussie forgets what he has just said.

cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:24am:
confusing what.. Undecided so you didnt come up with those ideas..

Back to top
 

I identify as Mail because all I do is SendIT!
WWW  
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #102 - May 5th, 2020 at 4:14pm
 
freediver wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 1:24pm:
I reckon you could figure that one out for yourself John.



What sound does a jellyfish make FD?
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #103 - May 5th, 2020 at 5:29pm
 
John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 1:00pm:
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:32am:
John Smith wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 11:15am:
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 10:04am:
he did suggest terms that cost them money.


I've yet to see a law suit that didn't cost money. Win lose or draw, lawyers want to get paid. Only a fool goes in thinking a win is guaranteed




mmmm so its best to think you will lose then you wont be disappointed...

are you readin that Ozzie?


The lawyers will typically advise you on what what they think your chances are cods. I don't know about this case in particular because Aussie hasn't said, but these sorts of cases are often taken on a 'no win, no pay' type policy. Lawyers won't even take the case if they don't think it will win. If they win they take a percentage of the win. That still doesn't guarantee you a win just because they've taken a case.

One thing you can bet is that in the meeting of owners, many options would have been thrown in the ring, by many owners, not just by Aussie. It's then up to the lawyers to advise on what path they think will have the best chance. I suspect that if the lawyers had said Aussies suggestions were unlikely to succeed, none of the other owners would have voted to go down that path. Contrary to FD's stupidity, people don't often throw good money after bad. Aussie would have been one vote amongst many.




I have been in litigation js so your not telling me what I dont know...

as for that NO WIN NO PAY  advertising its as crooked as it sounds.. and should not be allowed..

if you dont WIN  then you

LOSE.. and the costs go against you....so YES YOU BLOODY DO PAY..

it is so typical of legal speak....misleading and untruthful.



as it is I wish aussie good luck...I dont like to see anyone ripped off and this is what I see as a rip off...

aussie might know is this only  happening in Qld...where cabbies not only lose business they lose their equity


or are all States being taken to task....

if your claim is "somewhat novel"  other States could be waiting the verdict before going ahead....as your leal has pointed out    no two judges think alike.. Angry...no wonder its so painful.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 71950
Gender: male
Re: Court rules against Queensland taxis
Reply #104 - May 5th, 2020 at 6:47pm
 
cods wrote on May 5th, 2020 at 5:29pm:
as for that NO WIN NO PAY  advertising its as crooked as it sounds.. and should not be allowed..

if you dont WIN  then you

LOSE.. and the costs go against you....so YES YOU BLOODY DO PAY..



no win no pay is about your lawyers fee's ... not the other guys. If you lose and the judge orders you pay the other parties legal fee's, that's got nothing to do with your lawyers fees.

And yes, I am aware that in many cases of 'no win no pay', you do still pay some administrative costs.

Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 ... 5 6 7 8 
Send Topic Print