Less happy than usual.

no, but unlike the Tony Martin case, it does demonstrate that a
homeowner can be sued by someone unsolicitedly seeking some sort of
access to a property, even if there is no intent by the owner to cause
harm.

 

Well, it indicates that they can get a solicitor to write a letter to
the effect that they might[1] sue.

I can't see any follow up at all.

[1] The letter, as reported, doesn't seem to actually state that they
are suing, but is just the first step. Not that I'm an expert you
understand.


--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

Why not just see if Beav will put up or shut up.

 

Fine, as long as you accept the consequences. If you want the 'right'
to kill or maim intruders you'll have to move to the US though.

 

Quite. Many people will 'try it on' just in case the homeowner will
accept blame.

And even if it got to court, did it succeed?

People often seem to get confused by the concepts of lawsuits - one
person can 'sue' another for almost anything they feel like; whether
they have any chance of success is a completely different matter.

That's how I read it too.

 

I've just been trying (half heartedly admittedly) to trace what
happened to that case and can see no evidence it got any further.

An attempt to claim for personal injury damage on his house insurance
as a try on. Did the insurance company cough rather than fight it?
Anyone got better google fu or more time want to find out what the
outcome was?

 

What he just said.