Paul Rogers
Member
I thoroughly enjoyed reading this article and felt that Senan Molony dealt well with the conflicting evidence, with the possible exception of his conclusion. My knowledge of the workings of the Law is practically nil however and, rather than assume that Senan's conclusion is in error, I thought I'd see if anyone out there can shed some further light on the subject.
Senan's conclusion to his article is based on the fact that a Court Case appears to have been provisionally arranged with Whiteley suing the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company for "...alleged negligent steering and unseaworthiness of the vessel." The case did not, however, take place as provisionally arranged. Senan then draws his conclusion as to the reasons for this non-event as follows:
These days in the UK we have what is known as Legal Aid; i.e. One can, if it can be proved one has a valid case and yet insufficient personal means to fund the costs, obtain Government funding to take a case to court. Although I have very limited understanding of this subject, I'd be very surprised if such a system existed in 1914.
I was wondering: perhaps Whiteley, rather than receiving a "pay-off" from White Star as is alleged in Senan's article, simply could not find the funds to pursue his claim through the Courts? Alternatively, perhaps his lawyer advised him that the case was unwinnable and best dropped?
Are there any lawyers (or Law history buffs) out there who could clarify this point for me please? Thanks, in anticipation.
Senan's conclusion to his article is based on the fact that a Court Case appears to have been provisionally arranged with Whiteley suing the Oceanic Steam Navigation Company for "...alleged negligent steering and unseaworthiness of the vessel." The case did not, however, take place as provisionally arranged. Senan then draws his conclusion as to the reasons for this non-event as follows:
My question: is the explanation as obvious as Senan states?This story is an orphan. Nothing transpired in early March. The case does not appear in the advance warning lists in late February, as it should have done. The explanation seems obvious - it was struck out because the OSNC, trading as the White Star Line, settled.
These days in the UK we have what is known as Legal Aid; i.e. One can, if it can be proved one has a valid case and yet insufficient personal means to fund the costs, obtain Government funding to take a case to court. Although I have very limited understanding of this subject, I'd be very surprised if such a system existed in 1914.
I was wondering: perhaps Whiteley, rather than receiving a "pay-off" from White Star as is alleged in Senan's article, simply could not find the funds to pursue his claim through the Courts? Alternatively, perhaps his lawyer advised him that the case was unwinnable and best dropped?
Are there any lawyers (or Law history buffs) out there who could clarify this point for me please? Thanks, in anticipation.