Civil litigation - unbelievably unfair

[notreallyreallyme]

Have NC for this and not really expecting any help but just got to get it out.
Someone has a personal vendetta against DH. Last year he accused DH of taking valuable personal property from him (complete lies.)
DH suggested he go to the police. He didn't go to police but launched a civil case. The costs on both sides are huge.
The person bringing the case has a lot of money so costs etc not an issue. Completely different situation for us and the costs are crippling us.
He is also able to pay huge sums for expert witnesses (who just seem to be saying whatever he pays them to say ??)
I don't want try and settle because DH has done absolutely nothing wrong but the stress is unbearable. The financial impact of settling would be life changing anyway but if we keep going and then lose - we would literally lose everything.
I realise there's nothing anyone can say to help - but before this I really believed in the justice system. I now know how naive I was. Basically if you have a lot of money - you can make someone's life a misery.

Apparently in France at quite an early stage someone looks at the case to judge if there is any validity - to stop costs racking up when no case to answer. That doesn't happen here.

We've been told that even if we win we will never see our costs again because other party will just default and we don'thave the money to take out a case against them

Sorry so long - not even sure why I've written this. Just needed to write it down.

Thanks eurochick

You said up thread that you had a solicitor and a barrister on board. Usually a barrister is on board to prepare pleadings (so a defence in your case perhaps) but they would normally be asked to advise on merits too - so they will also have reviewed the papers. I'd be asking your solicitor and Counsel (the barrister) for blunt advice about merits (how they see the case going and whether your H's defence is likely to succeed) and why a strike out application is likely to fail if there is no case to answer.

Thanks namechanged they have both said that the case is 'very weak' but suggested that there is just about enough there to mean that a strike out wouldn't be successful. I am going to ask again.

So basically, an accountant has reviewed management accounts or cash flows for several years and suggested that there is an anomaly: ie, that for a certain period , less has come in (or more gone out) than normal?

The Claimant is saying that must be because your husband has siphoned some off, yes?

Are these proper 'forensic accountants' with a track record of giving evidence in court? Or someone 'tame' who has never done this sort of v specialised work before (the sort of 'expert' who tends to get their ass handed to them in Court). The wording you have paraphrased is very weak - money 'may' have gone missing would not get your Claimant very far in my laymen's opinion.

But a business's profits / cash receipts do go down and up for different reasons. General economic climate, Brexit, poor weather, other entrants to the market - all sorts.

And, of course, if money really has gone missing, someone else in the business could have taken it. Are system controls strong or weak? Have the auditors criticised them in the past?

I suggest that these two prongs are what your Defence should be investigating: who else could have had the opportunity, and what economic and other factors could have led to a natural decline in profits / cash receipts. You can start analysing these things yourself - I reckon it will make you feel less helpless if you are DOING something.

It may be that the Claimant is just using a woolly report to frighten you into submission, in the hope of getting a quick settlement and a smugness orgasm. let's hope so.

Thanks Carole that really helpful. It's so useful just hearing other thoughts on it.

I am wondering if we need to up the anti with our defence team. We just went with a local solicitor in a panic originally (someone who deals with both criminal and civil) as we were in a panic and also assumed originally it would go to police. (Who doesn't go to police over what is essentially theft??)

We then just went with barrister they suggested. We may need to review all that.

If anyone reading this has a suggestion for a good litigation solicitor and barrister for cases like this I would be grateful for any recommendations via private message in case we do need to change. We can get to London.

Thanks for all the input.

I'm not able to suggest who to go to in terms of solicitors as I am in the north, but DH and I went through civil litigation which lasted four years before it came to court, and it was the most stressful time of my life. Our case was very complicated, and also involved counter suing a solicitor who had previously advised us, and like you, we stood to lose everything.

Eventually it was settled "out of court", ie in meeting rooms at the court on the day it was due to be heard. In the end it cost us over six figures in legal fees, and would have been far more if the original solicitor hadn't finally accepted a large degree of liability.

You have my total sympathy, but I do think you need to go to a specialist solicitor. It will cost, but will be well worth it.

The relief when it's finished is indescribable, waking up at 3am and realising you've not gone straight into mega-worry mode. I am very sorry about your family illness, this must be a truly horrid time for you.

Thanks Molecule - I think it's difficult to imagine the true horror of it unless you have been through it.
The family illness is devastating on top of it.
I think you are right about specialist legal team. I wonder now at this stage if the right barrister is more important. Would still be interested in any recommendations from anyone.

Your solicitors will have a stable of barristers they work with or have heard good things about on the grapevine. I would let them choose to a large extent. But I do think you need to move solicitors.

Also OP - are the figures your Claimant relies on even audited? otherwise who knows what errors of allocation or cut-off are in there to make them 'lumpy'?

If you're nearly at case management stage, you're not far off disclosure (the court will order that both sides "disclose" everything relevant - so anything they intend to rely on and also anything they have that could aid the other party's case). Once you've had disclosure (and inspection of the documents), I would request a conference with your barrister for an advice on prospects ASAP. They can then explain things to you, and get all your DH's evidence in terms of getting ready for witness statements.

Having a con quickly forces the barrister to consider your case fully at the earliest opportunity - they can advise the solicitor about what needs to be in witness statements and it covers your back a bit if your solicitor isn't as on the ball as they should be. Also, it's the barrister who will ultimately be running the claim when it gets to trial, and from experience it is much easier to direct things at an earlier stage rather than trying to pick up the pieces when the sols have done things differently to how I want them done! It also isn't likely to cost any more, because barristers tend to be quite efficient from and hours/cost ratio point of view.

Have PM'd you

Thanks so much for that advice Sovietkitsch

Carole yes everything you are saying is correct which is why we need a really decent accountant. I think I have found someone good. Thank you for PM - I won't be able to see it till later as can't work out to see it on the app so not ignoring you.

I don't have any wise words or advice for you, but I just wanted to send you some virtual hugs. I'm shocked that this is allowed to happen and actually get to the courts. It seems so unfair. I really hope they see through his lies and throw the case out. If you honestly thought someone had stolen from you, you'd go to the police. Anything else is highly suspicious.

I've previously had someone with lots of money threaten to take me to court (for something that wasn't true). They offered to avoid court if I gave them something they wanted as they would then agree to settle privately.
When I refused they actually backed down, as they were just trying to bully me, but knew they didn't have a leg to stand on legally and morally. I wouldn't have had the money to take them on if they'd pushed it though, so I'm thankful it was just bluffing to see what they could get out of me.

I wish you all the best and lots of luck, as well as a sensible judge that will see through the lies and malicious intent.

Thank you overthehill