I am being threatened by a company to pay a disputed liability NOW or face additional Solicitor costs I am from Australia. In Australia, any civil claim below $10,000 is considered a small claim and one cannot use a solicitor to represent himself in the small claims court. One may also not claim the amount incurred in legal fees for small claim proceedings. I am currently being threatened by a car insurance company to pay a disputed liable amount of $1500. They are threatening to engage a solicitor if I don't pay NOW or risk adding solicitor charges on top of it. This is somewhat confusing to me due to my first premise above, i.e. small claims cannot have any representation and charge legal costs. Is there somewhat a way for them to go around this? Or are their threats merely empty threats? FYI, I really don't think I am liable for the amount.
Issues in the question In Australia, any civil claim below $10,000 is considered a small claim This depends on the State or Territory involved. In three the limit is $25,000, not $10,000. In only one is it exactly 19,000. In several the plaintiff has an option not to have such a case treated as a small claim. one cannot use a solicitor to represent himself in the small claims court. This also varies by state/Territory. In some a lawyer may represent a person or company, in some legal representation is allowed only if both parties agree or if the court permits, in some no lawyers are allowed except in very special circumstances. One may also not claim the amount incurred in legal fees for small claim proceedings. This seems to be true in most states Sources &quot;Small claims tribunals&quot; from the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) &quot;Debt Recovery – Small Claims&quot; from the The Arts Law Centre of Australia Details Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Small Claims Limit: $25,000 Name of court: ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) Option to use a higher court: No Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: Yes Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: no New South Wales (NSW) Small Claims Limit: $20,000 (higher for some kinds of cases) Name of court: Local Court, Small Claims Division or NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal Option to use a higher court: Unclear from my sources Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: Yes Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: No Northern Territory (NT) Small Claims Limit: $25,000 (higher for some kinds of cases) Name of court: Northern Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NTCAT). Option to use a higher court: No Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: Only with the leave of NTCAT Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: Only in exceptional circumstances Queensland Small Claims Limit: $25,000 (higher for some kinds of cases) Name of court: Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal ('QCAT'). Option to use a higher court: No Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: No, unless one party is a child or both parties and the tribunal member agree, or in certain other limited circumstances see https://www.qcat.qld.gov.au/resources/legal-advice-and-representation Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: No South Australia Small Claims Limit: $12,000 Name of court: Magistrates Court, Civil (Minor Claims) Division Option to use a higher court: No Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: No, unless both parties agree or one party is a lawyer. Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: No Tasmania Small Claims Limit: $5,000 Name of court: Minor Civil Claims Division of the Magistrates Court Option to use a higher court: No Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: Only if both parties agree and permission is granted by the Magistrate, or in other special circumstances. See https://www.magistratescourt.tas.gov.au/about_us/civil/minor_civil_claims Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: Yes, when one has been used. Victoria Small Claims Limit: $15,000 Name of court: Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) Option to use a higher court: Yes, Magistrates' Court. Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: Only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the other party will not be unfairly disadvantaged or in certain specific circumstances, see https://www.vcat.vic.gov.au/what-vcat-does/legal-and-professional-representation#when-you-don%E2%80%99t-need-to-ask-for-permission Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: Not normally, but possibly if the losing party has acted improperly or made a claim with no legal basis. Western Australia Small Claims Limit: $10,000 Name of court: Magistrates Court (Minor Claim) Option to use a higher court: No Lawyers (solicitors) allowed: Only if all parties agree, or the court grants special permission Can a solicitor's costs be recovered by the winner: No, unless exceptional circumstances exist.
Because your legal fees and contract damages are not "in addition to" your risk; they are your risk. If you pay the retainer and lose, you don't lose anything more than the retainer and damages. If you pay the retainer and win, you don't win anything more than the retainer and damages. The only kind of argument I can see here is that you're incurring some kind of psychic cost by enduring the uncertainty surrounding the litigation, but I can't remember ever seeing a case -- in Florida or elsewhere -- in which the court recognized taking on risk as a compensable harm, especially in a contract case, where damages are much more limited than in other kinds of cases. Risk is just a necessary feature of an adversarial legal system.
england-and-wales Litigants in Person - i.e. litigants not represented by solicitors (= attorneys in US) can recover the cost of their time at a set rate under the Litigants in Person (Costs and Expenses) Act 1975
Liability The concept of liability for damages is to place the wronged party in the same position that they would have been in but for the wrongful act. If restoring their car costs $300,000 then you are liable for $300,000. If the car is a total write off then you are liable for the cost of them getting an equivalent replacement, usually assessed at market value of the asset. Insurance Insurance is a different concept. An insurance company agrees to indemnify you for liability for your negligence within the limits of your policy: these usually include a deductable and a limit and sometimes a co-payment. You are liable to the wronged party - your insurer indemnifies you. If your insurance doen't cover all of your liability, you are responsible for the balance.
What is the name of the crime and/or tort I have committed? You are guilty of the crime of fraud, the crime of theft of the money and the item (I can't point you to the precise statute). You have breached your contract of sale. You are probably liable for fraud civilly (i.e. you could be sued for fraud). But, if one was really creative, I imagine that one could find more grounds for civil and/or criminal liability, although they would probably be unnecessary since the victims have plenty of remedies to secure all possible relief already. Who gets to keep the object? Under the Uniform Commercial Code, Article 2, in the United States, the general rule is delivery of possession by the seller (which didn't really happen here to one distinct person), but for unique goods, title passes when the unique good is identified to a contract with a buyer, so first in time to contract, first in right to the car, would probably prevail. But, I don't know what the rule would be in England and Wales. Is it handled differently if the &quot;valuable physical object&quot; is real estate? Land is harder to defraud someone with, because a reasonable person knows that in England and Wales real estate title is (usually, but not always) represented by a certificate of ownership maintained by a public official in the Land Registry, and is easily checked (about 15% of land in England and Wales show in the link is not registered so the possibility for deception is somewhat greater in that context). Also, generally, you don't pay for real property until you simultaneously receive payment in good funds, while brief extensions of credit for a non-perfectly contemporaneous sale transaction are more common in cases involving tangible personal property.
The important question is: was the £200 a fine (which is paid to the state) or compensation (which is paid to you)? Assuming it was a fine He doesn't (at the moment) owe you anything. However you can sue him for damages. Usually a claim for damages is time-barred after six years (and it is now seven years). However you weren't able to sue him yourself until you were 18, so you may have a couple of years left. However the clock may have started ticking immediately after the attack, on the grounds your parents or guardians could have sued. Talk to a solictor about this possibility; they should give you a free 30 minute consultation, and would probably take a case on a contigency fee (no-win no-fee) basis if it has any chance. In principle, you could have applied to the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board for compensation - but you are too late for that; you have to apply within two years (there are some exceptions, but none seem to apply to you). Assuming it was compensation He owes you £200. Now you need to enforce that payment - and again, the problem may be the six year clock. You will definitely need to talk to a lawyer about that. My gut feeling is that the £200 was probably a fine rather than compensation.
Tell your parents Given the circumstances it is a near certainty that the least he will do if you do not pay for the damage is make contact with them. It will be far, far better for you if they learn it from you rather than him. What could he do? He (or his insurance company) can contact your parents - he will almost certainly do this. He (or his insurance company) can sue you for negligence. Children are responsible for their own torts providing they have the capacity to recognize and avoid risk and harm - based on your question I have (and a court would have) no doubt that that you are. If you lose the case, and don't pay, he can have the government seize whatever you own in order to sell it to pay the debt you owe. If this happened in British Columbia or Manitoba he can sue your parents. He could report you to the police - they may or may not choose to prosecute if what you did was criminal: it probably wasn't but the police may investigate to determine this. If he is insured he may be required to notify the police.
This is part of an indemnification clause. Basically, the idea is that the service provider guarantees that if your business gets harmed because they let in an intruder, then they will absorb the losses if somebody sues you, as long as they have control of the court case and you cooperate with them in defending the court case. So, for example, imagine you are using a web hosting service. Suppose there is a vulnerability in the hosting service computers, and a hacker is therefore able to break into your web site and steal your customer information. Your customer sues you for allowing their credit card to fall into the hands of a hacker. The web hosting service's insurance will pay the damages if the lawsuit succeeds, as long as you let their lawyers (ie the insurance company's lawyers) run the defense of the lawsuit and you cooperate with them. The reason this language is there is because the "service provider" has an insurer that is guaranteeing them if they get hacked or something, then the insurer will cover any damages. The insurer requires them to make all their clients (like you) sign an indemnification agreement which includes the control clause.