Today I'm neither Angry nor Happy about....

[Gooner Girl]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

I was 1!

[Bruce Rioja]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

I was 1!

I was only 15

[Prufrock]

Dunno about Canada, but it's very rare here for you to get costs in the small claims court (and those you can get I think are v limited). You'll get expenses for any time of work probably but not much more. Think part of the idea is to stop people being able to bully those with little resources into collapsing because they can't afford to risk going to court and losing.

Does seem a tad harsh there in that, although they were clearly cocks too, they weren't quite cockish enough to fecking go to court. I don't know how that even got through the door without a proper 'reason' for issuing it though.

This wasn't small claims court, Pru, where you can't even take a lawyer. It wasn't even Ontario Court of Justice, it was Ontario Superior Court (this because of the amount of damages claimed).

There is of course a difference between court costs and legal fees (what you pay your lawyer). The plaintiff has to pay certain costs in order to file an action. If the action succeeds the costs are often awarded against the defendant. If it fails the plaintiff is stuck with them. Each party is responsible for its own legal fees and no award is made specifically on the basis of these. If the plaintiff succeeds, the damages awarded may take legal fees into account. The defendants could only get their legal fees back if they counter-sued (e.g. for malicious prosecution), which they did not her. So when the judge talks about costs he is talking about court costs. He made no award of damages so legal fees did not come into it.

Dies this answer your question, Bruce?

Edit: The plaintiff pays most of the court costs initially. They have to pay to file an action, pay bailiffs to serve papers, etc. etc. The defendant does not have any initial costs - just has to turn up so only pays costs if he loses. perhaps that makes it clearer.

Ha fair enough. As if they even got through the door!

Anyway, more locally, here is another example of a top judge doing top judgery: http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/conte ... thed-wigan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And a Bolton School alumnus no less (the judge, not the scally)!

[Worthy4England]

Dunno about Canada, but it's very rare here for you to get costs in the small claims court (and those you can get I think are v limited). You'll get expenses for any time of work probably but not much more. Think part of the idea is to stop people being able to bully those with little resources into collapsing because they can't afford to risk going to court and losing.

Does seem a tad harsh there in that, although they were clearly cocks too, they weren't quite cockish enough to fecking go to court. I don't know how that even got through the door without a proper 'reason' for issuing it though.

This wasn't small claims court, Pru, where you can't even take a lawyer. It wasn't even Ontario Court of Justice, it was Ontario Superior Court (this because of the amount of damages claimed).

There is of course a difference between court costs and legal fees (what you pay your lawyer). The plaintiff has to pay certain costs in order to file an action. If the action succeeds the costs are often awarded against the defendant. If it fails the plaintiff is stuck with them. Each party is responsible for its own legal fees and no award is made specifically on the basis of these. If the plaintiff succeeds, the damages awarded may take legal fees into account. The defendants could only get their legal fees back if they counter-sued (e.g. for malicious prosecution), which they did not her. So when the judge talks about costs he is talking about court costs. He made no award of damages so legal fees did not come into it.

Dies this answer your question, Bruce?

Edit: The plaintiff pays most of the court costs initially. They have to pay to file an action, pay bailiffs to serve papers, etc. etc. The defendant does not have any initial costs - just has to turn up so only pays costs if he loses. perhaps that makes it clearer.

Ha fair enough. As if they even got through the door!

Anyway, more locally, here is another example of a top judge doing top judgery: http://www.mancunianmatters.co.uk/conte ... thed-wigan" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

And a Bolton School alumnus no less (the judge, not the scally)!

It would have been much funnier if he'd added 6 months on with the addition of "...you little wanker" at the end.

[bobo the clown]

↑↑↑↑ as a Boltonian he coukd have thrown in the word "stump" .... I always think it works especially well.

[Bijou Bob]

My mate's daughter is getting married next year. Had a coffee with him today and he looked a tad shell shocked. She wants the do at Mere country club. Twelve and a half grand for the day give or take a grand.

Is it just me or is that insane???!

[William the White]

My mate's daughter is getting married next year. Had a coffee with him today and he looked a tad shell shocked. She wants the do at Mere country club. Twelve and a half grand for the day give or take a grand.

Is it just me or is that insane???!

My son got married last weekend.

Got it in on budget. Six thou.

This is - allegedly - cheap.

[thebish]

My mate's daughter is getting married next year. Had a coffee with him today and he looked a tad shell shocked. She wants the do at Mere country club. Twelve and a half grand for the day give or take a grand.

Is it just me or is that insane???!

My son got married last weekend.

Got it in on budget. Six thou.

This is - allegedly - cheap.

dirt cheap by today's standards - which is scandalous and utterly ludicrous (the amounts people are willing to spend on one day...) Having been a part of many weddings - I find that joyfulness in the day is inversely proportional to the amount of money spent...

[Bruce Rioja]

My son got married last weekend.

Got it in on budget. Six thou.

Weren't his Mrs's folks meant to pay? Not a criticism, you understand?!

[Prufrock]

Sure I've read that the average is now 20k*. Feck. Spent four years lying to the girlf's rents that my mum and dad are ultra old-school so hopefully they'll pick up the tab.


*Dunno if that's mean, median or mode

[William the White]

My son got married last weekend.

Got it in on budget. Six thou.

Weren't his Mrs's folks meant to pay? Not a criticism, you understand?!

My information is that parents on both sides made a contribution... But the young people themselves made up the rest...

Young people in this case meaning my son, born in 1966, and a bride significantly younger but obviously no wiser...

It was a fab do, anyway and my second visit to a church in under a year (the first being the Christening at Cookham, of the delightful first born daughter - obviously should have been painted by Spencer). This was a Norman era church in Old Woking that was just lovely. At the rehearsal the eve before I complimented the bride on her taste in ancient English churches.

This had a female vicar, a state of affairs the original Catholic owners would seriously disapprove of.

Anyway, it was interesting to mingle once more with very nice people believing very daft things.

[Dujon]

Yes, this wedding malarkey has gone much too far. As soon as the word 'wedding' is mentioned the suppliers' eyes light up like LED dollar signs. Have you seen the number of magazines dedicated to the subject? My daughter married about 14 years ago. Even though my wife made the three bridesmaids' dresses (she's a pretty good seamstress) and the reception was kept as best we could to a reasonably priced place - relatively anyway - it was an extraordinarily expensive exercise. My wife was also doing the financial bit of the project; when it approached AUD 10,000 I stopped asking!

Moral: Drown female progeny at birth.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

I must be a cheap skate. When I got married a few years ago we rented 4 villas in the same street in Gozo, invited family and a few friends and had them contribute to the villa costs. Got married in the registry office in Victoria and then had a pool party/BBQ back at one of the villas. It meant everyone could get changed in to shorts/t-shirts (was 40c) and have a good time.

We had a week with family and friends, then a week on our own. Including flights and our amazing villa, food and booze etc it came in at about 2k (including honeymoon). Much better than one of these fancy formal events IMO.

[Gary the Enfield]

I got married 20 years ago this August.

Although we were living in London all our family live in and around Bolton.

Total cost, including Honeymoon, was £7,000

[Prufrock]

Yes, this wedding malarkey has gone much too far. As soon as the word 'wedding' is mentioned the suppliers' eyes light up like LED dollar signs. Have you seen the number of magazines dedicated to the subject? My daughter married about 14 years ago. Even though my wife made the three bridesmaids' dresses (she's a pretty good seamstress) and the reception was kept as best we could to a reasonably priced place - relatively anyway - it was an extraordinarily expensive exercise. My wife was also doing the financial bit of the project; when it approached AUD 10,000 I stopped asking!

Moral: Drown female progeny at birth.

You're not wrong on the suppliers either. As soon as the word wedding gets mentioned they stick a zero on the end.

[bobo the clown]

So .... I don't mind shopping. Nor even being dragged around shops just for the sake of it. I have developed quite a natty range of slightly above disinterested, non-commital "mmmm" and "yeah" which keep me in the game without ever going overboard.

However, last week, as she flicked through curtains I felt the need to "like with a tad more enthusiasm than normal. "TThese are nice .... unobtrusive yet classy" I said.

I got the stare. The stare reserved for when I fart at a dinner table or .... maybe AND ... am caught staring at some bit's are. "Well you should .... We have had those in our lounge for the past 18 months".

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

My son got married last weekend.

Got it in on budget. Six thou.

Weren't his Mrs's folks meant to pay? Not a criticism, you understand?!

My information is that parents on both sides made a contribution... But the young people themselves made up the rest...

Young people in this case meaning my son, born in 1966, and a bride significantly younger but obviously no wiser...

It was a fab do, anyway and my second visit to a church in under a year (the first being the Christening at Cookham, of the delightful first born daughter - obviously should have been painted by Spencer). This was a Norman era church in Old Woking that was just lovely. At the rehearsal the eve before I complimented the bride on her taste in ancient English churches.

This had a female vicar, a state of affairs the original Catholic owners would seriously disapprove of.

Anyway, it was interesting to mingle once more with very nice people believing very daft things.

This is all very interesting, but do you have a photo of yourself in your Bullingdon finery?

[Gary the Enfield]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

I've been working 31 years too. Left at 16. I have 21 years left to work before I can retire (well, draw my state pension).

[bwfcdan94]

Today, by the way, I'm neither angry nor happy about it being 32 years to the day since I left school.

You're older than I thought, sir.

I've been working 31 years too. Left at 16. I have 21 years left to work before I can retire (well, draw my state pension).

At least you've got a chance to get there, most of my generation won't. Apparently we don't know were born .