Source: https://kerryunderwood.wordpress.com/2016/11/
Timestamp: 2017-08-18 21:59:07
Document Index: 98375119

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 4', 'art 3', 'art 5', 'art 7', 'art 8', 'art 9', 'art 10', 'art 36', 'EWCA ', 'art 2']

November | 2016 | Kerry Underwood
On 17 November 2016 the Ministry of Justice published its consultation paper – Reforming the Soft Tissue Injury (‘Whiplash’) Claims Process – a disingenuous title as it proposes a five-fold increase in the small claims limit for personal injury cases of all kinds, not just whiplash and not just road traffic.
So if a spanner falls on your head at work this consultation covers that accident, which has nothing whatsoever to do with whiplash or motor insurance premiums.
It also covers credit hire claims and the possibility of a tariff system for injuries.
The consultation is open until 5.30pm on Friday 6 January 2017, that is 50 days, including Christmas and the New Year period.
Including the impact assessment, which for once is lengthy and important, it runs to nearly 200 pages.
I have given the link above and the paper can be accessed there and responded to there.
The consultation paper proposes increasing the small claims limit for all personal injury cases from £1,000.00 to “at least £5,000.00.” (Paragraph 66, 82 – my bold).
The Executive Summary refers to £5,000.00 but Part 4 – Raising the Small Claims Track Limit for Personal Injury Claims – (pages 24 – 30 of the report) refers to “at least £5,000.00” (paragraph 66, 82), “whether the increase should be to £5,000.00 or higher.” (Paragraph 87, 94) and paragraph 97 reads:-
“97. The level for the small claims limit for PI claims relates only to the PSLA element of the claim and not to the total value of the claim. Consistent with this, it is intended that the increase should apply only to the PSLA element of the claim. In considering the level of the increase, and to build in an element of future proofing, the government has considered whether the limit should be raised further, for example to £7,500 or even to £10,000, given that the limit for all other claims is £10,000. However, the government has decided that an increase to £5,000 is a proportionate response to the issues identified at this stage, and the accompanying impact assessment uses this figure. We would, however, welcome views from stakeholders on whether the small claims limit should be increased beyond £5,000, and, if so, to what level.”
Question 14 of the consultation, which follows paragraph 97 reads:-
“Question 14: The small claims track limit for personal injury claims has not been raised for 25 years. The limit will therefore be raised to include claims with a pain, suffering and loss of amenity element worth up to £5,000. We would, however, welcome views from stakeholders on whether, why and to what level the small claims limit for personal injury claims should be increased to beyond £5,000?”
The Government says that it is “not minded” to limit the small claims rise to RTA claims only (paragraph 93), although question 13 states:-
“Question 13: Should the small claims track limit be raised for all personal injury or limited to road traffic accident cases only?”
The Ministry of Justice state, correctly, that neither the issue of raising the personal injury small claims limit, nor the types of personal injury claim that such increase will apply to, require primary legislation, that is they can be dealt with by way of a statutory instrument amending the Civil Procedure Rules.
Paragraph 86 reads:-
“Increasing the small claims limit for PI claims does not require primary legislation and can be achieved through changes to the Civil Procedure Rules. Supporting changes will also be required to allow for the recoverability of the fixed cost of a MedCo accredited medical report by the claimant and to ensure that all claims are supported by such a medical report.”
This will involve a major change in the culture of the Small Claims Court where generally expert evidence is not allowed.
Overall the consultation paper is very confused and confusing as to whether litigants in an increased small claims limit will require assistance.
The general tone of the paper is that they do not and yet paragraph 103 reads:-
“The government is considering the issue of the potential for claims management companies (CMC) and paid McKenzie Friends21 to re-enter the PI market in response to these reforms in general, and the increase in the small claims limit in particular. These types of organisation can offer services to claimants whilst operating with lower overheads than many PI lawyers. During the last consultation on this issue, a CMC trade association wrote to the government to argue that this would happen if the small claims limit were increased. We are interested in respondents’ views in relation to whether or not this would be helpful in providing support to otherwise unrepresented litigants.”
Questions 15 and 16, grouped together in the consultation paper, read:-
“Question 15: Please provide your views on any suggested improvements that could be made to provide further help to litigants in person using the Small Claims Track.
Please explain your reasons why.”
Thus the Government is specifically considering replacing lawyers in personal injury small claims with paid McKenzie Friends and with claims management companies.
How on earth that will reduce, rather than significantly increase, fraudulent claims is beyond me and the issue is not even raised in the consultation paper.
As any increase in the small claims limit will be dealt with by amendment to the Civil Procedure Rules, this change could be in as soon as April 2017.
On all previous occasions the key date has been when proceedings are issued.
Thus two passengers are injured in the same accident and both have claims worth £4,000.00. One claim is issued in March 2017 and thus is cost bearing and the other is issued in April 2017 and is not cost bearing.
The non-personal injury small claims limit was increased from £5,000.00 to £10,000.00 in April 2013 and that was how it was implemented.
Likewise under section 57 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 the relevant date is when proceedings were issued and not the date of the cause of action. Any claim issued on or after 13 April 2015, whenever the accident occurred, is caught by the fundamental dishonesty provisions.
“Proceedings” under that Act means issued at court and so being in the portal process does not count.
It is likely to be the same with a small claims so that court proceedings must be issued by the end of March 2017 to avoid a sub £5,000.00 claim being allocated to the small claims track.
There is no precedent as the small claims limit for personal injury matters has not risen since 1991, before the portals existed.
It is strongly arguable that reaching Portal Stage 3 means proceedings have been issued, as indeed they have with a court fee paid.
Unfortunately the conduct of the Ministry of Justice is currently not always logical or consistent with the rule of law, and so it cannot be assumed that the rule change will provide that anything in Stage 3 is issued for the purposes of the small claims limit.
Given the 21 days plus three months’ time for a defendant to consider a claim you should aim to have everything in the portal by 30 November 2016 and ensure that you are ready to issue proceedings once the time limit is up.
The Ministry of Justice expresses the view that “the level of compensation awarded to claimants is out of all proportion to the level of pain and suffering actually experienced by most people following a low speed RTA.”
Part 3 – Introduction of a Fixed Tariff System for other RTA Related Soft Tissue Injury Claims – is at pages 20 to 23 of the report.
The proposal is for a fixed – not capped – sum for each of six bands, the lowest being the 0 – 6 months band discussed in detail in my post – SOFT TISSUE INJURIES: CONSULTATION IN DETAIL and the highest being for 19 – 24 months duration whiplash injuries.
In each case the extra element for psychological injury is trivial, ranging from £25.00 in the lowest band to £100.00 in the highest band.
Duration New tariff amount Psych damages awarded Tariff with psych
0–6 months £400 £25 £425
7–9 months £700 £40 £740
10–12 months £1,100 £50 £1,150
13–15 months £1,700 £60 £1,760
16–18 months £2,500 £75 £2,575
19–24 months £3,500 £100 £3,600
Thus psychological injuries are valued at 13.7 pence per day.
To give some idea of how these tariffs compare with the current guidelines I set out below the tariff proposals, together with the current Judicial College Guidelines (12th Edition).
Injury Duration Judicial college guidelines amounts
(12th edition) New Tariff amounts
0–6 months £200 to £3,520 £400
7–9 months £1,705 to £3,520 £700
10–12 months £1,705 to £3,520 £1,100
13–15 months £1,705 to £6,380 £1,700
16–18 months £1,705 to £6,380 £2,500
19–24 months £1,705 to £6,380 £3,500
The Government is also consulting on whether, in exceptional cases – undefined – the court should have power to increase these figures by up to 20% for injuries lasting more than six months.
All of these proposed changes require an Act of Parliament and will be in the same legislation restricting or scrapping general damages for RTA related soft tissue injuries lasting six months or less.
The proposal to ban pre-medical offers will also be in that Bill.
Under these proposals the maximum award for general damages would be £3,600.00. If a 20% exceptional circumstances addition is allowed the maximum goes up to £4,320.00, that is a small claim under the proposed reforms.
For the matter not to be a small claim, special damages would need to take the total claim over £10,000.00 – the general civil small claims limit.
Thus for RTA related soft tissue injuries of up to 24 months the small claim limit will, in reality, be £10,000.00.
The questions in relation to this section are:-
“Question 11: The tariff figures have been developed to meet the government’s objectives. Do you agree with the figures provided?
Please explain your reasons why along with any suggested figures and detail on how they were reached.
Please explain your reasons why, along with what circumstances you might consider to be exceptional.”
Part 5 – Introducing a prohibition on pre-medical offers to settle RTA related soft tissue injury claims – is at pages 31 – 32 of the report.
In reality this should be a non-issue. If every firm saw every client, then there is no problem at all as you take a Witness Statement from your client, including details of the injuries, and will be able to judge the acceptance or otherwise of any offer.
In spite of the title the Government is in fact consulting on whether there should be a ban on pre-medical offers in all personal injury claims. Question 17 and 18 read:-
“Question 17: Should the ban on pre-medical offers only apply to road traffic accident related soft tissue injuries?
Question 18: Should there be any exemptions to the ban, if so, what should they be and why?”
Of course the first question should be “who is going to pay for the medical report upfront?”
The Ministry of Justice and the Lord Chancellor do not seem to realise that basically law firms act as banks for those clients in relation to medical reports and pay, or agree to pay, the £216.00 fee. Ultimately, in a successful case, this is recoverable from the defendant.
Most solicitors get this on credit. Obviously individual claimants will not be able to get such credit from MedCo reporters and thus will have to find the upfront if unrepresented – and it is of course the Government’s idea that everyone should be unrepresented in such claims.
There is a court fee remission. There is no medical report fee remission scheme.
There are so many ironies in these two pages, that it is hard to know where to begin.
Here is paragraph 105:-
“It has been argued that this type of offer is used to control the costs of the claims process. The argument is that it is not commercially viable to challenge low value PI claims in the fast track. It is not known exactly how many such settlements are made each year, but anecdotal evidence indicates that around 10% (in excess of 50,000 cases) of all RTA PI claims are currently settled without a medical assessment.”
We know that none of these claims will be in the fast-track as the Government is both increasing the small claims limit to £5,000.00 and slashing general damages for RTA related soft tissue injury claims so that they will all be in the small claims track.
In any event, surely a rich and powerful multi-national insurance company should be free to take a commercial view and settle a matter to avoid legal costs.
After all that is what happens up and down the country every day in litigation.
The whole tone of everything coming out of the Government, the Judiciary and everyone else for years has been that matters should be settled, and not subject to litigation, which should be a last resort.
Thus we have the courts punishing parties in costs for not making offers and the Pre-Action Protocols all, without exception, require parties to seek to settle matters.
Yet here is a proposal, which the Government intends to enshrine in an Act of Parliament, making it illegal for one party to potential litigation to make an offer to settle a matter, however generous that offer is.
Take paragraph 106:-
“There is also anecdotal evidence that a proportion of claimant solicitors request such offers on behalf of their clients to close the claim quickly and maximise the profit made from the claim. This can lead to under-settlement for claimants and possible future litigation if the accident actually causes serious long term health issues to a client whose lawyer did not arrange for an appropriate medical examination and report.”
So this is put forward as a client protection measure to prevent under-settlement for claimants.
I do not know whether to laugh or cry. The whole tone of the paper is that soft tissue injuries – and that is all we are talking about here – are massively overcompensated and that the judges, the courts and the Judicial College have all greatly overstated the level of damages for soft tissue injuries.
Hence the Government’s proposal to slash general damages in all but the most serious cases of whiplash – see my post – TARIFF FOR MORE SERIOUS RTA SOFT TISSUE INJURIES and SOFT TISSUE INJURIES: CONSULTATION IN DETAIL
So, for example, on the Government’s own figures a soft tissue injury of 0 – 6 months duration would attract an award under the Judicial College Guidelines of between £200.00 and £3,520.00. That is to be reduced to £400.00, with just £25.00 extra for psychological injuries.
Throughout the tariff system psychological injuries are valued at 13.7 pence per day.
Yet the author of this report talks about the behaviour of claimants’ solicitors leading to under settlement for claimants.
Throughout the report the Government refers to the Judicial College 12th Edition Guidelines.
They were replaced in September 2015 by the 13th Edition and therefore the figures given for existing levels of award are in fact too low. This obviously has the effect that the proposed Government cuts in damages are even greater than appears in the report.
Yes, of course insurance companies take a commercial view – and indeed they are bound by their duty to their shareholders to do so. However the idea that insurance companies are regularly paying up on claims they know to be completely fraudulent is plain nonsense.
How curious that the Government feels the need to protect insurance companies in a way that even the insurance companies do not think necessary.
With fixed tariff damages this leads to absurdities. A client is injured and after four months agrees that s/he has no continuing symptoms and does not suffer psychological injury. By law the damages are £400.00.
Yet the parties cannot settle that aspect of the claim without obtaining a medical report which will cost £180.00 at current rates. That is ridiculous.
Furthermore if there is a need to protect claimants against under settlement and to prevent insurers from taking a commercial view, then why is this prohibition not being implemented across the board, not just the personal injury board, but the entire civil litigation process?
I refer above to the fact that the Government is consulting on having a ban wider than RTA soft tissue injury but it is clear from paragraph 112 that that is their preference.
“In introducing a ban it is important to be clear on the scope of such a ban. The government proposes that a ban on pre-medical offers should apply only to RTA related soft tissue injuries. We have considered whether the ban should be extended to all PI claims, partly to ensure consistency in approach, but we believe it is debatable how much extra benefit there would be in such an extension.”
The government is also concerned that “many major retailers have budgets set aside to settle claims speedily.”
So what are they meant to do? Refuse to settle claims speedily? Fight every claim?
As stated above in every other area of law the whole system is designed for parties to try and settle claims speedily and yet here are supermarkets being criticised for doing just that.
These are the two worst pages of illogical trash that I have ever seen from a Government department.
PI CONSULTATION PAPER: OTHER MATTERS
Part 7 – Call for evidence on related issues – appears at pages 35 – 42 of the paper.
The Ministry of Justice seeks views on reforms to:-
Recoverability of disbursements; and
Introducing a Barème type system.
The Government states that it is not minded to undertake reform immediately in these areas but “will reflect carefully on responses to this consultation and decide how best to proceed.”
The Government invites views on one of four potential models for dealing with credit hire agreements and question 22 reads:-
“Question 22:
Please provide supporting evidence/reasoning for your view (this can be based on either the models outlined above or alternative models not discussed here).”
First party model
Under this model the temporary replacement vehicle would be provided by the policyholder’s own insurer, regardless of who was at fault for the accident.
Thus the policyholder would be required to use their own insurance cover and so credit hire charges would cease to be the subject of litigation.
This would not change the current legal position but would involve the introduction of formal regulation of temporary replacement vehicle providers.
Competitive offer model
This model would allow the at fault party, effectively their insurer, to get their own quote which could be used to challenge the cost of the temporary replacement vehicle from the insurer of the party not at fault.
The Government expresses no preference.
This involves notifying the insurer within a set time period.
Consideration is also to be given as to whether a claimant must seek medical treatment within a short period of time. For example in Sweden it is 72 hours.
The Government suggests a possibility of four weeks in this country, failing of which there would be a rebuttable presumption that the claim is minor.
Questions 25 and 26 read:-
“Question 25: Do you think a system of early notification of claims should be introduced to England and Wales?
Please provide reasons and/or evidence in support of your view.
Question 26: Please give your views on the option of requiring claimants to seek medical treatment within a set period of time and whether, if treatment is not sought within this time, the claim should be presumed to be ‘minor’.
The options set out are:-
“a) Option 1: Rehabilitation vouchers – which could only be redeemed for rehabilitation sessions received/attended. The rehabilitation provider would then be paid for only the actual vouchers used by the claimant, not for the number of sessions scheduled. This would help prevent phantom rehabilitation claims, but may be complex to administer as the rehabilitation provider could only be paid after the insurer has proof that the rehabilitation treatment has occurred.
b) Option 2: All rehabilitation arranged and paid for by the defendant – some claimants and insurers have suggested that private treatment/rehabilitation should be arranged through the defendant’s side, possibly providing the claimant with a choice of a small number of providers. This would help speed up access to treatment and allow greater independence and transparency of the process.
c) Option 3: No compensation payment made towards rehabilitation in low value claims – this option would mean the claimant would need to fund any rehabilitation costs themselves. The cost of rehabilitation is currently recoverable through the payment of other compensation for losses incurred (this is commonly referred to as special damages), the availability of which the government has already made clear it does not intend to restrict, and further primary legislation would be required to implement such a change.
d) Option 4: MedCo to be expanded to include rehabilitation providers – the MedCo system could be extended to cover rehabilitation services in addition to medical reporting services. The addition of rehabilitation providers would need to be considered carefully, including the identification of the legislative route required to implement changes in this area.
e) Option 5: Introducing fixed recoverable damages for rehabilitation treatment – this may help prevent unnecessary claims. There could, however, be difficulty in setting the overall rates as different claimants would be likely to have different rehabilitation needs. Thought would need to be given to whether the damages would be set per session or by fixing an upper value limit which could not be exceeded.”
Questions 27 and 28 refer:-
“Question 27: Which of the options to tackle the developing issues in the rehabilitation sector do you agree with (select 1 or more from the list below)?
Question 28: Do you have any other suggestions which would help prevent potential exaggerated or fraudulent rehabilitation claims?”
The Government is looking at claimants having to fund their own medical reports without being able to recover the cost, even if they win. The key sentence:-
“Rather than the assumption that the defendant would nearly always pay for the provision of medical evidence, the onus would be transferred to the claimant.”
Question 29 reads:-
“Question 29: Do you agree or disagree that the government explore the further option of restricting the recoverability of disbursements, e.g. for medical reports?
A potential future option – a points-based / Barème approach
This is a points system with 100 representing the highest possible rating, that is the most serious injury and moving down from there.
Question 30 relates and states:-
“Question 30: A new scheme based on the ‘Barème’ approach, could be integrated with the new reforms to remove compensation from minor road traffic accident related soft tissue injury claims and introduce a fixed tariff of compensation for all other road traffic accident related soft tissue injury claims. What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a scheme?
Please give reasons for your answer and state which elements, if any, should be considered in its development.”
Question 31 reads:-
“Question 31: Please provide details of any other suggestions where further government reform could help control the costs of civil litigation.”
Part 8 – Legislative timetable and implementation
This is a very short piece on page 43 and simply says that the Government intends to implement the main reforms in relation to the small claims limit, whiplash injuries and banning pre-medical offers as soon as possible.
Part 9 – pages 44 – 74 is a list of the questions.
Part 10 is an introduction to the Impact Assessment, the full text of which appears later in the document.
Broadly it is a whole series of questions asking if those responding to the consultation agree with the assumptions made by the Government in the Impact Assessment.
These further questions appear at pages 75 – 78 of the report.
A reminder that the deadline for responding to the whole consultation paper is 5.30pm on Friday 6 January 2017.
In Amey LG Ltd v Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2946 (TCC) (18 November 2016)
the Technology and Construction Court, part of the High Court, considered the interplay between the confusing terms of proportionate costs orders and proportionality.
The key rule for these purposes is CPR 44.2(2) which reads:-
the general rule is that the unsuccessful party will be ordered to pay the costs of the successful party; but
the court may make a different order.”
CPR 44.2(4) reads:-
the conduct of all the parties;
whether a party has succeeded on part of its case, even if that party has not been wholly successful; and
any admissible offer to settle made by a party which is drawn to the court’s attention, and which is not an offer to which costs consequences under Part 36 apply.”
Thus the sort of orders made under these provisions are that, although successful, a party will only receive say 50% of its costs as it lost on certain issues, or recovered a much smaller sum than it had claimed.
In this case the High Court ordered that the successful claimant should recover 85% of its costs.
These orders are generally referred to as “proportionate costs orders” because the successful party is awarded only a proportion of its costs, rather than all of its costs.
This is completely separate from any reduction on detailed assessment; it is a statement in principle that whatever costs are allowed should not be allowed in full but should be subject to a percentage deduction to reflect issues in the case. In other words it is not an “all or nothing” approach.
The key issue in this case, and relevant to other cases, is whether the separate concept of proportionality should come into play at this stage.
Here the court said that if proportionality was intended to be a relevant factor under CPR 44.2 it would have been specifically mentioned in the rule, and it is not.
The court expressed concern about the risk of “double jeopardy” whereby the court took account of proportionality issues at the CPR 44.2 stage and, subsequently the, the Costs Judge assessing the bill further reduced the costs under the well-known proportionality test in CPR 44.3.
This point, in the context of conduct, had previously been considered, with the same concerns being expressed in Ultraframe v Fielding [2006] EWCA Civ 1660.
Nevertheless the court here recognised that considerations of proportionality might feed into the process by which the court discounted what would otherwise have been an order for 100% costs, subject as always to detailed assessment.
The court suggested the following approach:-
In most, if not all, cases “a clear dividing line” can be drawn between the CPR 44.2 factors and proportionality.
The trial judge’s task should be limited to addressing the “relevant circumstances” (including conduct, success and admissible offers), their impact on costs, and whether (and how) they should be reflected in the costs order.
The judge should make a proportionate costs order based on those considerations, but not further consider what costs would have been incurred if the action had been pursued in a proportionate manner.
Although the judge might have some costs information (for example, from costs budgets in budgeted cases, which this was not), whether, and to what extent, costs had been unreasonably incurred, were matters for the detailed assessment.
If a trial judge does take account of proportionality when deciding what proportionate costs order to make (and makes a discount reflecting his assessment) that should be clearly stated in the order or judgment, so that, when conducting the detailed assessment, the costs judge knows what the trial judge has taken into account, and why.
In other blogs, listed at the bottom of this piece, I have dealt with the key proposals in relation to the personal injury small claims limit, scrapping or restricting general damages for RTA whiplash injuries, creating a tariff system for more serious whiplash injuries and banning pre-medical report offers, amending the rule concerning discontinuance in Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting and disclosing on the Claim Notification Form the source of the claim.
This post deals with the remaining issues.
by Jonathan Maas and Kerry Underwood
my council gave to me:
A rooftop lounge,
Four barbeques,
Threeeee hundred grand,
Six Lamborghinis,
Seven fitted kitchens,
Eight carat doorknobs,
Ten leather sofas,
Elevenses of Champagne,
Twelve Samsung TVs,
On 1 November 2016 the Government announced the opening of a consultation in relation to legal costs in publishing cases, including libel, slander, breach of confidence, misuse of private information, malicious falsehood and harassment – Consultation on the Leveson Inquiry and its Implementation.
Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 and Part 2 of the Leveson Inquiry provides that a member of a recognised self-regulator that loses a relevant media case in court will not have to pay the winning side’s costs.
However a publisher that is not a member of such a scheme has to pay both sides’ costs, even if the publisher wins the case.
Thus a publisher who joins a recognised self-regulator scheme operates in a costs free environment in court, whereas a publisher that is not a member of such a scheme has to pay all of the costs in any event.
This proposal is based on the fact that recognised self-regulators have to have a low cost arbitration scheme that replaces the need for court action.
Section 40 has never been brought into force.
A self-regulator has now been approved and on 11 October 2016 the House of Lords voted to amend the Investigatory Powers Bill so as to implement Section 40 but that amendment was defeated in the House in Commons on 1 November 2016.
The consultation seeks views on four options:-
to keep Section 40 “actively under review”;
to commence Section 40 in full;
to repeal Section 40 on the ground that the incentive to join a self-regulator is no longer required;
to commence Section 40 in part, so that it would protect members of a recognised self-regulator, that is in effect those signed up to the approved regulator – IMPRESS, but not to implement the section which punishes a non-member by ordering them to pay both sides’ costs in any event.
The text of Section 40 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013 reads:-
“40. Awards of costs
a relevant claim is made against a person (“the defendant”),
the defendant was a relevant publisher at the material time, and
the claim is related to the publication of news-related material.
the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator, or
it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to award costs against the defendant.
the issues raised by the claim could not have been resolved by using an arbitration scheme of the approved regulator (had the defendant been a member), or
it is just and equitable in all the circumstances of the case to make a different award of costs or make no award of costs.
The consultation ends on 10 January 2017.
Here is a response to the consultation paper on soft tissue injuries that the Ministry of Justice may just about understand. To the tune of Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star – but you may have guessed that. Or sing along to Johnny Cash’s Ballad of a Teenage Queen.
Now there’s no-one we can blame
Even though your neck is broke
English law thinks that’s a joke
Go and play the small claims track
All the sums are out of date
Might as well claim off the state
Soon we’ll have no courts at all
Life will then be such a ball
If you’re rich and powerful
If you’re poor just sit and bawl
The Legal Christmas Song Contest