Paul Fishlock case rumbles on as Y&R rejects independent assessment of legal fees
Fishlock
The ongoing legal stoush between Paul Fishlock and Y&R Brands is set to drag into a fourth year after the WPP-backed group refused an external assessment of how much it should pay of his legal fees.
Last year Fishlock won a Supreme Court ruling for unfair dismissal against Y&R Brands after he was squeezed out of his role as executive creative director of the now defunct Campaign Palace in 2011. He was awarded $300,000 in damages by the court, with Y&R, the parent company of the Palace, ordered to pay his legal costs.
In a statement GPY&R COO Jason Buckley said: “The parties are participating in the usual process for verifying legal/solicitor costs. There is a normal process that the parties are working through and we are at the beginning of it. As this is private, it is not appropriate that any further comment be made.”
(Edited under Mumbrella’s comment moderation policy)
Paul is a man of immense character and I admire his persistence and I hope he holds them to the penny.
you know, it’s really disappointing that nobody seems to be up in arms about this.
rent a mob comes out every time there’s a news ltd story, we get 50 comments about Schapelle Corby and 100 about street fund raising but nobody wants to comment on a situation where
– one of the biggest advertising employers in this country and the world absolutely stiffs a senior leader, truly one of the good guys in the market with an outstanding legacy
– gets humiliated and found guilty in court and ordered to pay damages and immense costs
– thumbs it’s nose at the court judgement and the leader it stiffed and in bloody minded fashion decides to withold the money it’s owed
I have no skin in this game – I know and have worked with both parties over the years. But I find WPP’s behaviour awful and am stunned that nobody else on this forum appears to care
I’m not sure why they’re estimating the costs??!!? Aren’t the legal costs….the ACTUAL legal costs.
Even if you win – you lose. By my recent court experience I was out of pocket by around 30% of my legal fees – in a clear open and shut case. The court awards costs – but costs have to be ‘taxed” – a process which has them bench-marked for reasonableness. Paul’s settlement of $300K will probably be soaked up by the amount of costs that will not be passed as reasonable. Rule number 1 – only lawyers win if you litigate. Sorry Paul.
Confused 5:16 makes the same (perfectly reasonable) assumption I made at the start of this farce: that if you win a case and are awarded costs the other party pays your costs. If only it was that simple. Turns out, even having been awarded ‘indemnity costs’ by the Supreme Court, due to the conduct of the defendant, there is still a big gap between actual costs and recovered costs. In this case, possibly six figures, not including the interest on carrying a mortgage-size debt to stay in the game and keep legal meters on both sides ticking over Jarndyce and Jarndyce style. While Mumbrella is hardly the forum for advocating legal reform, it is urgently needed. Until the scales of justice no longer tip in favour of Goliath’s deep pockets, the ability of his victims to ‘do the right thing’ will remain compromised.
Sorry to hear that Paul. It really does pander to those with the deeper pockets. This only affirms my position – the law is an ass.