Ask Auntie
Date: 10 April 2009
Issue: Vol 159, Issue 7364
Categories: Opinion
* * * * * *
This Week's Top Question
So much personal injury work now settles before counsel is brought in that chaps like me in my chambers are getting to court to advocate less and less. The last thing we want to be forced to do is don the double breasted and a crisp white shirt to get them soiled in some filthy cell or magistrates' court or receive tuppence for taking on ancillary reliefs where the respondent's assets these days amount to minus not less than 20 grand. Do you have any ideas, Auntie?
Roland Cressfall, Tibia Annex, Bath
I wonder whether the process of quantitative easing which is favoured as a means of kick-starting the economy by the printing of a heavy volume of banknotes could be imitated in this unfortunate situation. A number of road traffic and industrial accidents might be staged as a means of creating claims and thereby increase the prospect of work for members of the Bar. The devil would be in the detail but perhaps the idea could be put forward to the Bar Council.
* * * * * *
As a practical joke, I weaved a spoof maxim into one of my judgments a decade ago—Equity does to a cream trifle what cheddar cheese never did to clean hands. It has since been cited with approval in a number of judgments on appeal and appears in several works on the law of equity. I have discussed the situation at dinner parties with a number of my friends including the editor of The Lancet and received conflicting advice about what I should do. Do you advise me to own up and, if so, should I see the Lord Chief or Max Clifford?
A High Court Judge (as I then was)
Don't be daft. Equity is a load of nebulous you-know-what and much the better for a couple of good recipes. Incidentally, add a drop of cherry brandy and ensure the sponge cakes are fresh.
I am only just into my Bar pupillage and would welcome advice on a matter which I have felt too stupid to raise with my master and peers. When entering or exiting a court, should I smile at the bench?
Ms Penelope Misprop, Angst Chambers, Temple EC4
Obviously every opportunity should be taken to curry favour with whoever may be deciding your client's fate. The problem with smiling is that this may be spontaneously reciprocated and an opposing party could seek to have the case restarted before a different bench on the gound of a perception of bias. The response from the bench could also be seriously misleading. An old country solicitor friend of mine once appeared for the defence at a magistrates' court off of his own patch and was met with apparently continuous grinning throughout the case for the prosecution which persuaded him to refrain from making a submission of “no case to answer” or calling his client to give evidence. A conviction ensued without the bench troubling to retire. It transpired that the chairman was afflicted with a nervous condition which induced the appearance of great joviality when in fact he was boiling with rage. My advice, therefore, is to display a happy countenance but never smile whilst entering, leaving or in court unless a joke, however puerile, is emitted from the bench.
I am superintendent-general (grade 2) at a rural retreat established for demotivated members of HM Courts Service staff who have trouble getting out of bed to go to work or communicating with customers whilst at work. Some have been involved in physical attacks on paralegals and parties to claims who have questioned their efficiency. We have attempted the usual forms of treatment including shouting at ashtrays, mock laceration of claim forms and strangulation of section heads, naked dancing with bailiffs and controlled breathing. Whilst we have manipulated statistics for the purpose of our annual report, the reality is that our success rate has been painfully low. According to an Indian report just issued, it will take at least 466 years for the Delhi High Court to clear its backlog of cases if it continues at its current average of spending less than five minutes on each one. Among its backlog of 74,599 cases, at least 600 were more than 20 years old. Would you recommend that we incorporate regular recitals from the Indian report into our programme for patients?
Mr Ricardo Dribble, care of The Happy House, Nottingham
Uncle issued a summons against Liptons in 1956 for the supply of some dodgy split peas and received a notice last week that the case had been struck out for failure to file an allocation questionnaire. I doubt that there is much to chose between us and India. I should urge your patients to do as little as possible by staying in bed on a more regular basis.
Auntie will be delighted to hear from you but cannot guarantee to reply or, if she does, to be any real help at all
Share this page
