Limiting Costs on Exposure to Spurious Proceedings

It is common in Thailand and in litigation for multiple parties to be joined to proceedings without fear of punitive costs orders by the party or law firm brining the claim. This often results in a ‘throw in as many defendants’ as possible strategy which can be financially damaging and can drain resource and time due to the need for some representatives of the company to be available for court proceedings or for providing instructions and/or background information to their legal team.

We represented a globally branded property company in relation to proceedings filed by a vexatious litigant who had embarked upon a series of vendetta claims against a party with whom he had developed personal hostilities. He briefed his lawyers to be as hostile and possible and to find as many courses as possible to file litigation.

Our client was caught up in the cross fire and named in proceedings for a claim of a nominal sum plus interest. However, as our client was not the perpetrator of any misdemeanor but had been alleged to facilitate the misdemeanor of the first defendant, our client was determined to keep its record clean and ensure no precedent was set of a successful claim being concluded erroneously or otherwise against it.

We therefore had to devise a strategy whereby:

1. Our client participated in proceedings and exercised its right to defend itself
2. Our client’s busy management team did not have to attend mediation hearings
3. Clear parameters for settlement scope were set so we could negotiate within those parameters without the need for a running commentary of the same
4. We limited the deliberate policy of the Plaintiff to try and inflict damage during proceedings through strictly controlled communications focusing narrowly on the offer our client accept

Even at the point of agreeing a settlement agreement during mediation proceedings, the Plaintiff’s counsel or the Plaintiff instigated a policy of trying to inject liability inducing language into the settlement agreement, with a ‘never let it go’ approach evidence in prevarication on unimportant wording. Our team worked to agree the points that were pointless to fight for, and focused on ensuring no post settlement obligations and liabilities would come to surface later.

The same client refers it’s customers to Hughes Krupica – it is testament to the success of Hughes Krupica’s disciplined practice area approach that business referrals continue to date.