Classic collective action problem: if the litigants could get together they’d agree to underwrite one case going to trial; but individually each has a compelling reason to settle.
The claimants have pretty much done that, to get this far and to force disclosure. But, as the facts in each case will be different, at some point the cases can be picked off, one-by-one.
No alternative in the circumstances. He was correctly advised.
None of the other judicial remedies - injunction, declaration, etc - would work here. As the post avers, you cannot expect a civil claim to the job of an inquiry or a criminal prosecution.
I saw "X's" original thread, kind of grasped the issues and the unfairness of the advantage deep deep pockets confer, so thanks for providing the legal background to the situation. I note your comment about public interest in a case being pursued. It reminds me of my brother-in-law, a motorcyclist critically injured (life-changing) in a collision with a private bus too big for the country road it was on, pursing an action in negligence. The company's lawyers simply dragged matters out and wore him down. That company went bust, someone else took it over, and started the process again. Stressed at facing a repeat, my b-in-l accepted what was a pittance in damages. This was in Scotland, but I imagine it would be similar in England. The laws around civil procedure really do need an overhaul to rebalance what are essentially asymmetric actions where the tortfeasor has deep pockets.
Classic collective action problem: if the litigants could get together they’d agree to underwrite one case going to trial; but individually each has a compelling reason to settle.
The claimants have pretty much done that, to get this far and to force disclosure. But, as the facts in each case will be different, at some point the cases can be picked off, one-by-one.
Was he wrongly advised to sue for damages if that only results in getting money? What would have been the alternative?
No alternative in the circumstances. He was correctly advised.
None of the other judicial remedies - injunction, declaration, etc - would work here. As the post avers, you cannot expect a civil claim to the job of an inquiry or a criminal prosecution.
Thanks for responding ! True, but to restrict damages just to money might be something to consider
Damages = money, I am afraid.
I saw "X's" original thread, kind of grasped the issues and the unfairness of the advantage deep deep pockets confer, so thanks for providing the legal background to the situation. I note your comment about public interest in a case being pursued. It reminds me of my brother-in-law, a motorcyclist critically injured (life-changing) in a collision with a private bus too big for the country road it was on, pursing an action in negligence. The company's lawyers simply dragged matters out and wore him down. That company went bust, someone else took it over, and started the process again. Stressed at facing a repeat, my b-in-l accepted what was a pittance in damages. This was in Scotland, but I imagine it would be similar in England. The laws around civil procedure really do need an overhaul to rebalance what are essentially asymmetric actions where the tortfeasor has deep pockets.