Splitting a claim into several small claims UK, small claims court question. Is it permissible to split a large claim into several small claims, against multiple defendants, arguing a different cause of action in each? Consider this hypothetical and entirely fictional case: Adam inherits a valuable piece of art (e.g. a painting). Adam has no interest in art, and decides to sell. Bill contracts to handle the sale. He promises to sell the painting for a minimum of £120,000, and to charge a commission of £10,000. Charlie is a professional art restorer. Bill hands the painting to Charlie for cleaning. But Charlie makes a mistake, and damages the painting, reducing the value. It subsequently sells for £90,000. Bill deducts £20,000 from the sale price, double the agreed commission, and sends Adam the balance of £70,000. Adam is outraged. He had been expecting a payment of £110,000 but has ended up £40,000 down. Adam consults Dave the lawyer. Dave advises that he might have to spend £50-60,000 to recover the loss, might not win, might not recover costs, etc. So Adam considers a claim in the small claims court. The UK small claims limit is £10,000, but Adam has a plan. He will make three separate claims, asking for maximum damages in each. First, he will sue Charlie for damaging the painting. Second, he will sue Bill for damaging the painting. (vicarious liability) Third, he will sue Bill for overcharging on the fees. Is Adam's plan legally permissible? Basically, is it allowed to sue two different people for the same negligence, and sue one person twice for two different things. Can a big claim be split up into smaller claims like this? Note - for clarity, I'm not interested in Adam's dispute. I don't need to know about overcharging and the law of contracts, or liability for damage in tort law. Just the point about splitting up the case. And the case I described is just an example. Make the answer as general as possible, not restricted to this particular case. And, as a final reminder, the jurisdiction is England and Wales. Not asking for legal advice, you are not my lawyer, etc.
You can only sue once on the same facts on the same defendant The issue here is res judicata - once a case between 2 parties has been resolved, that matter can never be litigated again. So Adam cannot split his litigation against Bill. Adam has suffered no damage from Charlie If Adam now had an artwork of reduced value as a result of Charlie’s negligence he would. But he doesn’t have a damaged art work so Charlie has caused Adam no harm.
In the U.K., bankruptcy law applies to individuals and partnerships, while the U.K. insolvency law applies to companies. In an insolvency proceeding, there is administration (the rough equivalent of a Chapter 11 Bankruptcy in the U.S.)or a liquidation (the rough equivalent fo a Chapter 7 Bankruptcy in the U.S.). In administration, the administrator of the company renegotiates debt payments so that carrying costs of office buildings can be brought to less than rental income, if possible, and if not, or if it is a liquidation in the first place, sells the building at auction to the highest bidder and stiffs unpaid creditors if this is not enough to pay them all according to priority and pro rata within each priority ranking. Simple. Negative value property is trickier. Sometimes someone can be paid to take it over (this happens often with depleted oil and gas wells that have to be plugged), if there are sufficient funds to do so. The administrator may instead disclaim the property. A disclaimer under this section— (a)operates so as to determine, as from the date of the disclaimer, the rights, interests and liabilities of the bankrupt and his estate in or in respect of the property disclaimed, and (b)discharges the trustee from all personal liability in respect of that property as from the commencement of his trusteeship, but does not, except so far as is necessary for the purpose of releasing the bankrupt, the bankrupt’s estate and the trustee from any liability, affect the rights or liabilities of any other person.. . . (5)Any person sustaining loss or damage in consequence of the operation of a disclaimer under this section is deemed to be a creditor of the bankrupt to the extent of the loss or damage and accordingly may prove for the loss or damage as a bankruptcy debt. Basically, a court decides what to do with it. If no one claims it and it has been disclaimed by the administrator, it escheats to the Crown (i.e. the U.K. state) as it would if a decedent's estate with no creditors or heirs. This disclaimer process is similar to the process in Australia described in the answer by @DaleM and has the same name in U.K. law as it does in Australia. Escheat can still occur in England and Wales, if a person is made bankrupt or a corporation is liquidated. Usually this means that all the property held by that person is 'vested in' (transferred to) the Official Receiver or Trustee in Bankruptcy. However, it is open to the Receiver or Trustee to refuse to accept that property by disclaiming it. It is relatively common for a trustee in bankruptcy to disclaim freehold property which may give rise to a liability, for example the common parts of a block of flats owned by the bankrupt would ordinarily pass to the trustee to be realised in order to pay his debts, but the property may give the landlord an obligation to spend money for the benefit of lessees of the flats. The bankruptcy of the original owner means that the freehold is no longer the bankrupt's legal property, and the disclaimer destroys the freehold estate, so that the land ceases to be owned by anyone and effectively escheats to become land held by the Crown in demesne. This situation affects a few hundred properties each year. Although such escheated property is owned by the Crown, it is not part of the Crown Estate, unless the Crown (through the Crown Estate Commissioners) 'completes' the escheat, by taking steps to exert rights as owner. However, usually, in the example given above, the tenants of the flats, or their mortgagees would exercise their rights given by the Insolvency Act 1986 to have the freehold property transferred to them. This is the main difference between escheat and bona vacantia, as in the latter, a grant takes place automatically, with no need to 'complete' the transaction. Thus, the toxic property would escheat to the Crown, but not the Crown Estate (defined below, which would not claim it since it has no value) and no one else would claim it. So, it would be technically owned by the government but not administered by anyone, unless the government affirmatively decided to do so. The Crown Estate is a collection of lands and holdings in the United Kingdom belonging to the British monarch as a corporation sole, making it the "Sovereign's public estate", which is neither government property nor part of the monarch's private estate. As a result of this arrangement, the sovereign is not involved with the management or administration of the estate, and exercises only very limited control of its affairs. Instead, the estate's extensive portfolio is overseen by a semi-independent, incorporated public body headed by the Crown Estate Commissioners, who exercise "the powers of ownership" of the estate, although they are not "owners in their own right". The revenues from these hereditary possessions have been placed by the monarch at the disposition of Her Majesty's Government in exchange for relief from the responsibility to fund the Civil Government. These revenues thus proceed directly to Her Majesty's Treasury, for the benefit of the British nation. The Crown Estate is formally accountable to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, where it is legally mandated to make an annual report to the sovereign, a copy of which is forwarded to the House of Commons. The Crown Estate is one of the largest property managers in the United Kingdom, overseeing property worth £12 billion, with urban properties valued at £9.1 billion representing the majority of the estate by value. These include a large number of properties in central London, but the estate also controls 792,000 ha (1,960,000 acres) of agricultural land and forest and more than half of the UK's foreshore, and retains various other traditional holdings and rights, including Ascot Racecourse and Windsor Great Park. Naturally occurring gold and silver in the UK, collectively known as "Mines Royal", are managed by the Crown Estate and leased to mining operators. Also, while not strictly on point, the Environment Agency in the U.K. may criminally prosecute people who were involved in breaking the environmental laws in question, if they are still living. (In Colorado, where I live, most toxic mines date to the 19th century, were abandoned, everyone who was personally involved with them is dead, and the state and federal EPA try to clean them up as funds become available, sometimes making the problem worse due to unexpected mishaps that occur in the cleanup process.)
Yes, there is a reasonableness limit, and this is especially true in consumer transactions. If you were given an estimate and the final bill is a lot more than what you were expecting, you can dispute it. The final price should be ‘reasonable’. The law doesn’t say what counts as reasonable, so you’ll have to agree it between you. You should consider: the estimate you agreed to [if there was one] any changes, and why they happened anything that happened that was beyond the control of the trader, like bad weather or the cost of materials going up https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/consumer/getting-home-improvements-done/problem-with-home-improvements/ When it comes to work itself, the act states that a tradesman or professional has a 'duty of care' towards you and your property. Any standard or price you agree must be honoured. But if it isn't agreed in advance the work must be done to a reasonable standard, at a reasonable cost, and within a reasonable time. So if you haven't fixed a price, you don't have to pay a ridiculously high bill. All you have to pay is what you consider 'reasonable' and invite them to sue you for the rest. Be careful though, in some circumstances when you are withholding payment you may have a claim made against you by a supplier if you are in breach of contract. What's a reasonable amount would be what similar tradesmen would have charged for the job. So get a few quotations. https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1fdlwC9xzyxjCpWMlsCGG3j/supply-of-services NB that article refers to The Supply of Goods &amp; Services Act 1982, which was partially superseded by the Consumer Rights Act 2015.
We don't want this issue to adversely affect our credit and got legal consulting which suggested we should pay the debt collector to protect our credit score, and then sue the landlord for the money back in small claims court. I'm a little worried about this strategy since it requires to hand away the money first, and am trying to get second opinions. The debt collector is probably either the owner of the claim against you, if it is an assignee of the claim, or an agent of the landlord for purposes of collection. Thus, payment to the debt collector is equivalent to payment of the landlord. The law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction regarding whether payment constitutes of waiver of a right to sue over the debt. Sometimes it is necessary to designate the payment "under protests" or "reserving all rights", but that is not a uniform rule of law that applies in all jurisdictions, and I do not have the time and familiarity with that state's law to research Massachusetts case law on that point accurately.
It would depend on the law of that state, and the insurance policy. Here is a sample policy from the California Earthquake Authority. §8 on Other Insurance says a. If there is other insurance that covers earthquake loss to the dwelling or other property covered under this policy,we will pay our share of the covered loss or damage. Our share is the proportion that the applicable limit of insurance under this policy bears to the combined limits of insurance of all policies that cover the same property. As you can see, they anticipate the possibility of having multiple insurance policies, so it's reasonable to conclude that it's not illegal to have two earthquake insurance policies, at least in this case.
You have to pay the premium You are not buying insurance by the month - you are buying coverage for a year for which you making monthly payments. At law, your insurer has to pay out for a single claim that happens during that period - most insurance policies contain a reset clause that reinstates the cover after a claim but this only applies if the asset still exists. Insurance law started with insurance of wooden ships on intercontinental voyages where losses were usually total and this ‘accident of history’ informs modern insurance where losses are usually not total. Similarly, being able to cancel the insurance if you dispose of the asset is a creature of the contract and usual practice rather than a legal requirement. As for “mak[ing] it clear to me” - they did. It’s in the policy which you legally read and understood even if you didn’t actually read it.
As a matter of contract law it would not be possible to enforce a requirement to pay legal fees without agreement. You could easily see how this would be problematic: one could just draft letters to hundreds or thousands of people and require them to pay the costs of composing the letter. My understanding is that this is common practice in the United States (see speculative invoicing). However, people are generally free to pay whatever they want to anyone they want. The other side is free to pay the legal costs, they just probably won't. In some common law jurisdictions, the concept of a Calderbank offer may be another reason to write a letter such as this; the settlement offer can be relied upon in later proceedings as an indication as to the costs that would be appropriate to award to the winning party, should the offeree unnecessarily prolong legal proceedings
One reason is that in a German civil suit, the cost for lawyers and for the court (court isn't free) is set according to the value that the parties are arguing about, which would be the value that one party demands, minus the value that the other party is offering to pay. Then the cost is divided between winner and loser according to the percentage of the value the claimant was awarded. So if I ask for €1,000,000 and I am rewarded €10,000 then the cost is calculated based on my €1,000,000 claim, and since I was rewarded only 1% of the claim, I'll pay 99% of the cost. The defendant will pay my €10,000 and 1% of the cost, that is my lawyers, their lawyers, and the court. With these rules, asking for the sky and then not getting much is a very, very bad strategy. On the other hand, if a huge company sues me for €10,000 then they can't snow me under with an army of lawyers: The court will get only a small amount of money for the case, so at some rather early point the judge would tell the huge company: Stop right now; I'm not paid enough money to listen to your army of lawyers.