Anyone can access my car...

[Skylarking]

Your example...That is extremely difficult to prove, if not impossible.....So a rather poor example to run with

Fuel contamination is a real example with real consequences for the owner of the car. Sad part is that it‘s it difficult to prove, just not cost effective when the cost of damage is less.

Even engine slap isn’t hard to get proof, it’s just expensive and for many not worth the cost or risk of going down such a path. Sadly it’s much easier for some to sell their car and have it nice and warm when the prospective buyer comes for a test drive. Either that or it’s an excuse to do the mods they’ve always wanted to do but couldn’t rationalise it… We humans are funny animals.

But we’ve gotten off the thread path somewhat

 

[vc commodore]

Fuel contamination is a real example with real consequences for the owner of the car. Sad part is that it‘s it difficult to prove, just not cost effective when the cost of damage is less.

Even engine slap isn’t hard to get proof, it’s just expensive and for many not worth the cost or risk of going down such a path. Sadly it’s much easier for some to sell their car and have it nice and warm when the prospective buyer comes for a test drive. Either that or it’s an excuse to do the mods they’ve always wanted to do but couldn’t rationalise it… We humans are funny animals.

But we’ve gotten off the thread path somewhat

When a case is going through small claims court, you factor in all costs you are claiming for if you win the case....If you win the case, you are awarded all costs....Even when you fill in the paper work to start proceedings, it has on that paperwork, the figure you are claiming for.

So cost effectiveness isn't a factor in determining whether you proceed or not, as you get those costs back if you win the case.....If you don't, then you pay the other parties costs....

 

[Forg]

But we’ve gotten off the thread path somewhat

Indeed, I borrowed the OP’s car this evening as I had an errand requiring parking in Bankstown … not gonna use my car for that!

 

[Skylarking]

When a case is going through small claims court, you factor in all costs you are claiming for if you win the case....If you win the case, you are awarded all costs....Even when you fill in the paper work to start proceedings, it has on that paperwork, the figure you are claiming for.

So cost effectiveness isn't a factor in determining whether you proceed or not, as you get those costs back if you win the case.....If you don't, then you pay the other parties costs....

That’s not true that costs are always awarded to the winning party in tribunal cases. There has to be some conditions met for the judge to actually award costs, be they tests cost, expert witness attendance costs, lawyers cost or any/all of these…

And even if they are awarded (which isn’t a given) some people may simply not have the considerable cash they’d need to spend up front. In such cases cost effectiveness in finding a solution plays a part (and the big companies know it).

There was one fuel contamination case in NCAT where fuel testing costs were awarded against the petrol company but that was due to what the judge describes as egregious behaviour on fuel seller/company‘s part. It’s something that’s not a given in all cases.

Maybe rules are different in SA.

 

[vc commodore]

That’s not true that costs are always awarded to the winning party in tribunal cases. There has to be some conditions met for the judge to actually award costs, be they tests cost, expert witness attendance costs, lawyers cost or any/all of these…

And even if they are awarded (which isn’t a given) some people may simply not have the considerable cash they’d need to spend up front. In such cases cost effectiveness in finding a solution plays a part (and the big companies know it).

There was one fuel contamination case in NCAT where fuel testing costs were awarded against the petrol company but that was due to what the judge describes as egregious behaviour on fuel seller/company‘s part. It’s something that’s not a given in all cases.

Maybe rules are different in SA.

State doesn't matter....On the form filled in for a small claim, you place your costs on the paperwork, which is handed to the judge, along with all the evidence you wish to produce for your claim...

Who ever wins the case gets their costs awarded to them via the judge.....Of course stupid over priced figures will be ignored by the judge Payment for those costs is another matter altogether.

So bounce around all you like...Simple fact is, your surposed hesistation for making a small claim for fuel contamination due to testing costs outweighing repair costs has bugger all to do with it. I suspect you knew you had no chance of winning your claim, so you took the option of copping it on the chin for the repaires....


The same applies for other claims.....If you dig into your pocket to gather the evidence required for a small claim, that is placed on the paperwork that is lodged for a small claim.....As part of the evidence that is required, is the costs of the repaires/testing or both is lodge for the judges perusal....


As for cost effectiveness...Big companies will know if they are stuffed, when it comes to a claim against them.....They weigh up the costs of trying to win the case, vs the cost if they loose.....If the costs of loosing is greater, they opt to pay the claimant out, with a clause denying all liability....

Just for your benefit...I went through a small claim about 7 years ago....It cost me a whopping $50, or there abouts, to lodge my small claims paper work with the courts...When I won my case, I was awarded that $50 on top of my documented claim I was asking, which was in with all the evidence handed to the judge

 

[Skylarking]

VC, just because you put some cost on a bit of paper lodged with the court and win your case doesn’t mean you will always get everything you asked for. If some of the claims made are considered unreasonable or not allowed, those parts being claimed will be denied even though you’ve won. It’s not an automatic win case = get everything you asked for on some bit of paper…

As is, the law is specific about lawyers costs in tribunal small claims in many jurisdiction. For example, at NCAT

Each party to the proceeds in the Tribunal is to pay their own costs. 2. However the Tribunal may award costs in relation to proceedings only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances warranting an award for costs.​

Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) – Who pays the costs?

In NSW local court, it’s a little different.

There is a limit on the value of a plaintiff's claim depending on which court they go to. This topic is about cases in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court which deals with claims for $20,000 or less. However, this amount does not include any additional expenses that the plaintiff can claim such as interest.​

​

https://www.lawaccess.nsw.gov.au/Pages/representing/Local_courts_small_claims/chased_for_money/Responding_to_soc/What_can_they_claim.aspx

But you can keep believing what you like and I’ll stick to the facts as I know them and documented by the courts, lawyers and on the www for all to read

As for my claim re fuel contamination, you need to learn to read as I stated it didn’t cost me anything since it was covered by my vehicle insurance (without excess being payed) and the insurance company made a full recovery from the petrol company using the information I’d already provided the fuel company

In that fuel contamination case, insurance route was an easier road to take rather than forking out $1k to repair the car and $1k++ to test the fuel sample and wait maybe a year for a positive result from a tribunal. In my case, cost, time and effort played a big part in the path chosen

 

[stooge]

 

[vc commodore]

VC, just because you put some cost on a bit of paper lodged with the court and win your case doesn’t mean you will always get everything you asked for. If some of the claims made are considered unreasonable or not allowed, those parts being claimed will be denied even though you’ve won. It’s not an automatic win case = get everything you asked for on some bit of paper…

As is, the law is specific about lawyers costs in tribunal small claims in many jurisdiction. For example, at NCAT

Each party to the proceeds in the Tribunal is to pay their own costs. 2. However the Tribunal may award costs in relation to proceedings only if it is satisfied that there are special circumstances warranting an award for costs.​

http://[URL]https://watsonandwatson...ministrative-tribunal-ncat-who-pays-the-costs

[/URL]

In NSW local court, it’s a little different.

There is a limit on the value of a plaintiff's claim depending on which court they go to. This topic is about cases in the Small Claims Division of the Local Court which deals with claims for $20,000 or less. However, this amount does not include any additional expenses that the plaintiff can claim such as interest.​

​

http://[URL]https://www.lawaccess.n...ey/Responding_to_soc/What_can_they_claim.aspx

[/URL]

But you can keep believing what you like and I’ll stick to the facts as I know them and documented by the courts, lawyers and on the www for all to read

As for my claim re fuel contamination, you need to learn to read as I stated it didn’t cost me anything since it was covered by my vehicle insurance (without excess being payed) and the insurance company made a full recovery from the petrol company using the information I’d already provided the fuel company

In that fuel contamination case, insurance route was an easier road to take rather than forking out $1k to repair the car and $1k++ to test the fuel sample and wait maybe a year for a positive result from a tribunal. In my case, cost, time and effort played a big part in the path chosen

You don't read posts too well now.

I did say the winner of the case gets their costs back except if over priced stupid figures are put in front of the judge. Read the end of my second paragraph for that portion of my reply...

And I'll definately stick to facts...

Here is your quote over that fuel contamination claim, post no #39

"Heck I was unwilling to go to small claims when I suffered fuel contamination. Why because the fuel testing costs were larger than the repair costs and it’s not a 100% guarantee you will win even with the test results or that your test costs will be be covered…"

So don't go banging on that rubbish....No where have you mentioned you were going through insurance, except now.....

Knowing how the system works, I am betting you knew you had very little chance of winning the case, so you chose to cut your loses and by the looks of it, go down a different path.

 

[Forg]

A quick Google tells you that the rule-of-thumb is that the winner gets all costs paid, not for the purpose of the loser copping a rap over the knuckles but just to cover whatever costs the winner has copped … but that there are also caps to the reimbursement amounts, and that the judge can decide. In short, anything is possible really, but the person who wins the case usually gets their costs covered.

When your car’s scrood by shitty petrol it’d be pretty difficult to get a sample of the shitty petrol & prove it’s shitty … by the time you find out, that shitty petrol’s all been sold.

 

[Skylarking]

You don't read posts too well now.

I did say the winner of the case gets their costs back except if over priced stupid figures are put in front of the judge. Read the end of my second paragraph for that portion of my reply...

And I'll definately stick to facts...

Here is your quote over that fuel contamination claim, post no #39

"Heck I was unwilling to go to small claims when I suffered fuel contamination. Why because the fuel testing costs were larger than the repair costs and it’s not a 100% guarantee you will win even with the test results or that your test costs will be be covered…"

So don't go banging on that rubbish....No where have you mentioned you were going through insurance, except now.....

Knowing how the system works, I am betting you knew you had very little chance of winning the case, so you chose to cut your loses and by the looks of it, go down a different path.

It does seem that the section I typed about my fuel claim somehow got borked and didn’t make it into my much earlier post so sorry for that. **** happens.

But you are still ignoring facts as presented to you in my last post. Just read the links in my previous post and it should be clear more than “overpriced stupid figures” can be denied by a judge. What some may consider valid costs must be denied in some situations. In NCAT for example, lawyers cost must be denied in their entirety in tribunal cases (unless special circumstances have been deemed to have occurred) and such costs can be capped in local (NSW) courts.