Law3 mins ago
Please Don't Stare
This made me laugh, it is sad really.
People do sue for the daftest things.
Here is the story.
http:// news.sk y.com/s tory/14 98970/a ctress- sued-fo r-stari ng-at-m an-thro ugh-tv
People do sue for the daftest things.
Here is the story.
http://
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by marval. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
"The rules have prompted concern it could lead to frivolous cases, such as this one.
It is reported that a number of cases have already been thrown out because of their frivolity."
At least they have the right idea and chuck them out whereas over here hed no doubt be using ooman rights legislation and some leftie lawyer al a Cherie Blair et al to pursue it .
It is reported that a number of cases have already been thrown out because of their frivolity."
At least they have the right idea and chuck them out whereas over here hed no doubt be using ooman rights legislation and some leftie lawyer al a Cherie Blair et al to pursue it .
The cases are weeded in the english court system
so suing the Pope ( last known address The Vatican ) for being a prat ( even if he is one ! ) is weeded out pretty quick
also the defendant if he is found, can apply for a summary dismissal ( Barmaid give the rules for that in the Law column somewhere )
ooman rights do NOT apply here
( I know I know I shouldnt take these points seriously )
and even before the great reforms of 1835 and 1852 ( !! ) this case could have been chucked out on the following terms ( non-suiting ) here
http:// en.wiki pedia.o rg/wiki /Non-su it
scroll down to UK
o and remeber if you lose a case you pay the other sides costs
so suing the Pope ( last known address The Vatican ) for being a prat ( even if he is one ! ) is weeded out pretty quick
also the defendant if he is found, can apply for a summary dismissal ( Barmaid give the rules for that in the Law column somewhere )
ooman rights do NOT apply here
( I know I know I shouldnt take these points seriously )
and even before the great reforms of 1835 and 1852 ( !! ) this case could have been chucked out on the following terms ( non-suiting ) here
http://
scroll down to UK
o and remeber if you lose a case you pay the other sides costs