radeng,
Originally Posted by radeng
Point of information.........In the 19th century, there were several railways running profitably - Great Northern, North Western, Great Western, Midland to name but a few.
I didn't know that, and obviously got it wrong. Thanks for the correction.
GGV,
Originally Posted by GGV
Another is the actual merit of your case...... the issue in dispute, the quality of the evidence, the real intentions of the opposing action, the relevant law, etc.
When you make the decision to fight such considerations matter a lot. In fact, they may justify the taking of relatively high risks in terms of costs.
Sorry, don't agree, through personal experience. Courts and judges are human.
The only court case I ever lost, as plaintiff, defendant (in this case) or expert witness, was a case in which the judge had already decided that I had established the phenomenon which the plaintiff had disputed, through witness reports (one from someone who is registered with the court as an expert). The court-appointed expert then wrote a report in which he said the phenomenon was impossible. The judge reversed herself and went with the "expert". When I calculated the financial risk of appealing (taking into account that I had the burden of proof and what it would cost me to establish the phenomenon through proof) and the time frame in which I had to decide to appeal, I figured that I would rather get on with the rest of my life rather than persist. Then again, the amount at stake was only about EUR 8K.
PBL