HAIG    REPORT:    GoTo [on this page] HaigReport's Menu Of Themes of Menus for our thousands of pages
TIPS for
Navigating HaigReport:  If you arrived at this page, referred from a Search Engine such as Google et al, your URL link will NOT have an #Anchor/Marker to take you to the relevant spot on this page.  In that case, we do recommend that you view our "Latest HaigReport Promotions" of recent additions to our websites, by Clicking Here.  It will open in a new Browser window. 

If
you Click Here, you will be taken, usually, to the specific Unique Content on this page, for which you were most likely seeking.  However, if you Click Here, you will be taken to the Top of the HaigReport Header, below on this page. 

However, if you have arrived at this page from another of our Website pages, your link will usually have an #Anchor, also called a marker, which will take you to the intended specific spot on the page where that marker is positioned.  In fact, it will probably take you there prior to your reading this.  Moving to that Anchor is the final step in the loading of this page.

 HAIG     REPORT:   Is now on  twitter  [from 2nd June, 2013]  link to us HERE on twitter     See our Twitter Strategy    

 HAIG    REPORT:  SEE: Russell Mathews' COMMENTARY:    Russell Mathews' [BCom BSc LLB & BA] current TOPICAL commentary on GOVERNMENT, politics & business     Press to READ       Press for MENU   

 HAIG    REPORT:    WANTED:
Healthy female "dog" to breed with Parson Russell Terrier, to produce ASSISTANCE DOGS.   Rochedale South QLD 4123
I wish to breed from my Parson Russell Terrier. He is a trained assistance dog. He has a wonderful nature. The breed of his mate could be varied or a cross; eg Parson Russell Terrier, Jack Russell Terrier, Beagle, Bull Terrier, Bull mastiff, Staffy, and/or Fox Terrier plus many others. She does not need to be "pedigreed". I am very protective of my dogs. She will become very valuable to me and become one of my assistance "dogs". If we can assist each other, please contact me on my contact form, including your email address and your landline phone number so I can phone you to discuss. 

Because I am disabled and have an LLB [so therefore understand the Law surrounding disabilities and assistance dogs] I am now branching out to providing Assistance dogs to disabled persons [even if disabled in only a minor way and so not even realizing it]. This is not a business proposition but rather just a very necessary service I can offer to the community.
Many people have a disability and do not realize their ailment or "problem" is by law, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA], classified as a "disability". This is especially so for people getting on in years, and who have a dog, and are maybe moving to accommodation where they are told they cannot take their dog. In a majority of cases, those people cannot be legally forced to surrender their animal/dog.
I will be assisting those person who already have dogs, but are being forced, unlawfully, to dispose of them because maybe they are moving accommodation. I can train your existing dogs to be assistance dogs and provide the documentation as required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) [DDA]. I do not intend to charge for this, but just maybe cover some marginal costs.

 Click here  to Learn how your Personalized Alert Notice [IMMEDIATELY ABOVE] is prepared by our HAIG Unique Visitor Algorithm: [HUVA] or  Click here  to see your UNIQUE Personalized Alert Notice in a new Browser Window.


 RACQ insurance & NRMA insurance/IAG, encouraged by "lawyers", combine to attempt to defraud young apprentice.:


My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies. The HAIG REPORT: the EVIDENCE My logo, my TRADEMARK, is the MRI of my skull, showing gross assymetry,aka DEFORMITY = ugliness and target of bullies.

   It is Our legal, social and moral DUTY to EXPOSE CRIME, FRAUD & CORRUPTION plus Lying and Hypocrisy in Public Life, Including Judges & magistrates 
 

Fraud, Corruption & attempted  MURDER 
covered-up by Queensland police, EXPOSED 

DirectoryWebsite/header.php

Fraud by lawyers &
Insurance Companies

commonheader.php

Reg. Office: 254 Hawken Drive, St Lucia, Qld. 4067, Australia.  
Editor-in-Chief:  Russell G H Mathews BCom BSc LLB BA      EMAIL us anytime:  Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay. 

considerevidence.php

Consider the evidence! Please Please make a donation using BPay.  using  Please make a donation using BPay.  

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

See: HaigReport's Menu of Menus of Sites of Related Fraud & Corruption Topics:

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=> RACQ insurance & NRMA insurance/IAG, encouraged by "lawyers", combine to attempt to defraud young apprentice.

../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

See: the Menu: for Insurance Company Lawyer Fraud

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  
http://HaigReport.com/includedSeeTodaysHotTopics.php

See: Today's HAIG HOT_TOPICS  => Click HERE <= 

/CodingPHP/includedSeeContentPageFileNameURL.php

  Click here to GoTo Detail:=> RACQ insurance & NRMA insurance/IAG, encouraged by "lawyers", combine to attempt to defraud young apprentice.

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

See: HaigReport's Menu of Menus of Sites of Related Fraud & Corruption Topics:

 Content: RACQ insurance & NRMA insurance/IAG, encouraged by "lawyers", combine to attempt to defraud young apprentice.

../Corrupt Police& Magistrates Menu.php An example of a CASCADING Drop Down Menu.

MENU: Rantala-Gate: Corrupt Police & Magistrates Mafia.

CDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.phpCDDM_StartMenu160.php

See: the Menu: for Insurance Company Lawyer Fraud

Follow @HaigReport
??   ??   ???? Tweet  
Share on Facebook Share on Facebook  

RACQ insurance & NRMA insurance/IAG, encouraged by "lawyers", combine to attempt to defraud young apprentice.:

???????????????????????

Two insurance companies, RACQ insurance & NRMA insurance/IAG, encouraged by "lawyers", combine to attempt to defraud young apprentice.


Janell Marie Saverin jumped out of her car and shouted at Isaac, in a loud, demanding and exasperated voice,   "Didn't you see me pull out?" [because she did not see Isaac].     Janell Marie Saverin had http://HaigReport.com/imagesInsuranceCompanyLawyerFraud/20141207WhitePagesSaverinJ_19TarcoolaStRochedaleSouthQLD4123_cr01.jpgbeen "rat running"; [see diagrams beside/below and immediately below that - she lives at 19 Tarcoola St, Rochedale South.  The collision occurred on Priestdale Road at the intersection with Thallon Street.  She was determined to not waste one minute in traffic on Rochedale Road.   Her 'rat running' showed her state of mind; her "mindset".  She was in a hurry.]  That statement, "Didn't you see me pull out?" by Janell Marie Saverin was in effect saying, "I was here first, so you're in the wrong."  Janell Marie Saverin was in the wrong, as she failed to give way to the one on her right.

http://HaigReport.com/imagesInsuranceCompanyLawyerFraud/20141206GoogleMap19TarcoolaStRochedaleSouthToThallonPriestdale_cr01.jpg The purpose of this publication is to show the evidence that both insurance companies have, which evidence shows that Janell Marie Saverin, not Isaac, is to blame for the collision.   Janell Marie Saverin failed to give "right of way" to Isaac at the intersection. The Insurance companies know that this can probably not be produced in this court case so they think they will be able to obtain an unjustified judgements against Isaac, when  they know that it would be fraudulent.  RACQ & IAG are still proceeding with these claims against Isaac.   That shows they are both being fraudulent.   This fraud would improve their revenue so that suggests that both RACQ Insurance and IAG are prepared to defraud anyone, if it will improve their revenue. That seems that customers of RACQ Insurance and NRMA Insurance/Insurance Australia Ltd part of IAG Limited, the Insurance Australia Group, listed on the ASX, should be careful that their insurance company is not defrauding them, and will not defraud them, or attempt to defraud them.   Admittedly, in this case, both insurance companies are relying upon the advice of separate private firms of lawyers.   Those lawyers are self interested to extend the litigation.  Neither insurance company attended the settlement conference where this evidence was produced. Both were represented by their respective firms of lawyers.  

In the settlement conference, Saverin admitted that when she exited her car, immediately after the collision, she did say to Isaac, "didn't you see me pull out".  I was astounded that she admitted that.

Note the image above from White pages for J Saverin.  That suggests Janell Marie Saverin is single. At the conference Janell Marie Saverin stated she had her two sons in the car with her; aged 10 and 12, I believe she said.   That suggests she is a "supporting" mother.   If you experienced her beligerant attitude and viewed her frumpy appearance, you would understand the reason that no self-respecting guy would hang around.  Whether the frumpy appearance or "frumpy" beligerant attitude preceded, is irrelevant.   No doubt, she bemoans the cruel world requiring her to do so much, all by herself, and with so little money.  She would feel "morally justified" in doing whatever will make her life a "bit easier".    This would include lying to save her "no claim bonus", so as to blame Isaac, whereas she of course, is a "blameless angel".   She would have felt rushed in the morning, having to do everything herself without assistance, so justifying her saving a minute or two by "rat running".  She would feel "jusified" in trying to push into a line of banked up slowly moving traffic, when she does not have right of way as she is coming in from the left.   She would feel "the cruel world owes her" because of her "disadvantaged" [poor me] situation.

These next two photos show the spoon drain across Thallon Street at its junction with Priestdale Road. 

The following photos show the spoon drain across Thallon Street at the junction with Priestdale Road.   A vehicle needs to slow to almost a stop to traverse this spoon drain, as did Janell Savrin on the morning of the collision with Isaac.  She slowed to almost a stop as if she was stopping for Isaac, on her right, but then, being in a hurry, she negligently http://HaigReport.com/imagesInsuranceCompanyLawyerFraud/20141214PhotoSpoonDrainThallonSt_016_tn300x400.jpgmisjudged and negligently speared out in front of Isaac, but she could not continue to accelerate because Peter Pryor's car was at the back of the line of traffic banked back in front of her.

The likelihood is that Janell Marie Saverin did not see Isaac coming along Priestdale Road. She crossed the spoon drain at about 45 degrees or more from the direction of Thallon Street.  See the approximately triangular concrete apron up to the spoon drain as shown in the second or lower photo of the spoon drain.   Crossing the spoon drain at that angle meant that Saverin had to look not just to her right but look back at 45 degrees or more to see Isaac's vehicle, and the probability is that the side column obscured her vision of Isaac's vehicle, as she concentrated on negotiating the spoon drain.   She caused the collision, albeit it accidentally, but the lies and fraud  the low life parasite practiced thereafter, were very deliberate.

There was then the screech of brakes, as indicated by Peter Pryor, and the inevitable collision and crash as Isaac had nowhere else to go.  Then, Janell Marie Saverin jumped out of her car and shouted at Isaac, in a loud, demanding and exasperated voice,   "Didn't you see me pull out?".   That statement, "Didn't you see me pull out?" by Janell Marie Saverin was in effect saying, "I was here first, so you're in the wrong."  Janell Marie Saverin was in the wrong, as she failed to give way to the one on her right.

Proving that she was "rat running" would show her mindset, and how she caused the collision.  The  route shown in blue is the direct non-rat running route.    Just  turning right  from Algona St to Rochedale Road would be difficult and a bit time consuming, but not impossible, with the traffic on Rochdale Road at 8am in the morning.  There are traffic lights at  Underwood  Road  intersection.  There is also a school on Roachdale Road.

A three car collision occurred on Priestdale Road,  Rochedale South, Brisbane, just by the intersection of Thallon Street with Priestdale Road at about 8:05am on Tuesay 30th July, 2013.   At the point of the collision all three were approximately heading in the direction of the roundabout intersection of Priestdale Road with Rochedale Road. 

The front car was driven by Peter George Pryor, the insured for that car were Peter George Pryor and Debra Helen Pryor and the insurer was RACQ Insurance  Ltd which is wholly owned by The Royal Automobile Club of Qld.  Guess where Debra Helen Pryor works?  RACQ, boom boom.   

The second car was the one driven by Janell Marie Saverin. It was insured by Insurance Australia Ltd, part of IAG Limited, the Insurance Australia Group, listed on the ASX.   The insurance companies, RACQ and IAG, admit having communications between themselves in regards to this collision, but refuse to provide it to Isaac by discovery.

 The third vehicle was driven by Isaac, the son of friends of mine. 

Isaac began receiving threatening letters from RACQ and IAG/NRMA.

http://HaigReport.com/imagesInsuranceCompanyLawyerFraud/20141214PhotoSpoonDrainThallonSt_20141214_131319_tn400x300.jpg RACQ, on behalf of, and in the name of, Pryor has initiated legal proceedings against Isaac, in the Brisbane Magistrates Court.  Saverin, Insurance Australia Ltd and RACQ Insurance Ltd have been joined.

RACQ and the insured couple of Peter George Pryor and Debra Helen Pryor, are represented by  the "lawyer" Melissa Ban of  ULR Lawyers Pty Ltd of 17 Godwin Street, Bulimba Qld4171.       Janell Marie Saverin and Insurance Australia Ltd are represented by the "lawyers" HolmanWebb with "lawyers" involved being Ingrid Martin, and Marissa Coward.

Isaac lodged a defence and counterclaim.   Melissa Ban, of ULR lawyers Pty Ltd then requested the Magistrates Court to call a "Settlement Conference".  The legislation relevant to a Settlement Conference is detailed below.   The conference was organized to occur at noon on Tuesday the 14th October, 2014.

The notification to Isaac, from the magistrates court, states, "The proceedings of a Settlement Conference shall be confidential and are not disclosed to the Court without
the consent of all parties should this matler proceed to trial."    with "shall be confidential" in bold.    However, consider the legislation reproduced below.   Nowhere is the Settlement Conference stated to be confidential.   Nowhere is it stated that the evidence cannot be produced or published.  Also, nowhere is it stated that the evidence cannot be produced or published, UNLESS some condition is met. All that is stated it that for the evidence or any aspect of the Settlement Conference to be evidence in the actual dispute, or in any other CIVIL proceeding [ie it is fine to produce the evidence in a criminal trial, or in another non-criminal proceeding "founded on fraud alleged to be connected with, or to have happened
during, a relevant conference"], ONLY IF all parties agree.   ["fraud" can be either or both a civil and/or criminal charge.]  The condition is only in relation to production of the evidence in that civil proceeding or maybe another civil proceeding.  The condition is not in relation to non-production.

Hence, there is no reason that I should not publish this evidence, nor discuss this evidence with the insurance companies.  There are just a few finite situations [ie "at the trial of the dispute or in another civil proceeding"; unless the proceeding is one foundered on alleged fraud in that settlement conference], where the evidence is admissble ONLY WITH the agreement of all parties.  Otherwise, in all other situations, including another civil proceeding foundered on alleged fraud in that particular settlement conference, the agreement is unnecessary.   The legislation is silent on all other situations.

At the  "Settlement Conference", ULR Lawyers, RACQ and the Pryors were represented by Neal McGinley.   His facebook page lists his "Education" as Barrister's Board of Qld, 1987 – 1992, which suggests he was too dumb to attend uni.  [I have four degrees including an LLB, and two with majors in mathematics, all from the ultimate university in Qld; The University of Qld.]  He had an obnoxious character.  He objected to my being at the conference.  His firm called the settlement conference. Clearly, it was intended that they, trained lawyers, could interrogate and torture a young apprentice electrican, and have him at their mercy. 

Isaac had advised the other parties more than a week prior to the Settlement Conference  that we realized that she was "rat running".  No doubt, at the  "Settlement Conference", to discount that suggestion of "rat running" Janell Saverin said she came that way to pick up other kids going to the same school as her kids.   With Isaac wanting to know the street she travelled, he asked her the address of the kids from where she picked them up.  She then admitted that she would pick up other kids going to her kids' school, if she "saw them walking along the side of the road", but on this day, only her kids were in her car with her.

[BTW, you will notice "Rochedale Markets" mentioned in the top right side of the map directly below.  Rochedale Markets is a long established, family owned and run fresh fruit and vegetable market.   I have found that Rochedale Markets have very good value for very fresh fruit and vegetables.   If you haven't tried Rochedale Markets, you should to do yourself a favour.]

http://HaigReport.com/imagesInsuranceCompanyLawyerFraud/20141212GoogleMaps230metresLamornaStToThallonSt_cr01.jpgSaverin admitted that when she exited her car, immediately after the collision, she did say to Isaac, "didn't you see me pull out".  She explained this, at the Settlement Conference, as being that she turned out of Lamorna Street, nearly opposite Isaac's driveway, and more than 200metres from the point of impact. [At the time of the Settlement Conference, she knew Isaac's address, as Isaac gave his address immediately after the collision.]  She said she saw Isaac coming out of his driveway, and that that was the reason that she stated, "didn't you see me pull out".  It is important to her case, and saving her "No Claim Bonus", that she was not turning from Thallon Street. She knew where Isaac lived, because Isaac gave her his address at the scene of the collision.  That statement of hers makes no sense. It is fabricated nonsense.  It is not logical that she would say that at the point of the collision if it was just because Isaac had purportedly seen her turn into Priestdale Road 200 metres down the road from the collision. 

She said that because in her mind she had been quick enough to turn into Priestdale Road before Isaac's vehicle would collide with hers.  Alternatively, she was shocked at her not seeing Isaac's vehicle, so she returned the thought and asked the question of Isaac that maybe Isaac did not see her pull out. The likelihood is that Saverin did not see Isaac's vehicle, because his vehicle was obscured by the side pillar of her vehicle when she took a fleeting glance as she negotiated the spoon drain across Thallon Street.

Saverin admitted that she had only her two kids in the car at the time of the collision.  Prior to that, she said, she came this way to to pick up some other children.  When taken to task she said she picked them up if she saw them walking to school.  She had tried to explain her "rat running" as not rat running, but she failed and showed that she had lied to try to suggest that she was not rat running.

A person "rat running" would enter Priestdale Road by Thallon Street rather than Lamorna Street.   Often, the traffic is banked up from the Rochedale Road- Priestdale Road intersection roundabout right past Lamorna Street.   A rat runner would push into a line of banked up cars.  The rat runner just creeps forward until someone lets them in, or will creep forward to place a part of their vehicle between two other cars.  Given that Janell Marie Saverin was rat running, would she want to push-in at the back of the line of banked up cars or as close to the front of the queue of cars as possible?

[BTW, you will notice "Rochedale Markets" mentioned in the top right side of the map directly below.  Rochedale Markets is a long established, family owned and run fresh fruit and vegetable market.   I have found that Rochedale Markets have very good value for very fresh fruit and vegetables.   If you haven't tried Rochedale Markets, you should to do yourself a favour.]

http://HaigReport.com/imagesInsuranceCompanyLawyerFraud/20141212GoogleMap225.4metresLamornaStToThallonSt_cr01.jpg On this day, the cars were not banked up past Thallon St.  Thallon Street has a spoon drain across it at the point of junction with Priestdale Road.   Saverin had to slow to cross the spoon drain and then accerated out in front of Isaac.

Saverin, Ingrid and the other female became very animated, inflamed and aggressive, saying that she can come this way after I mentioned that she was "rat running" to avoid traffic.   What was their point?

Pryor admitted that there was a screeching of brakes/tyres.  He stated that when he heard the screeching of brakes, he looked in his rear vision mirror and saw her coming for quite some distance, before her car collided with the back of Pryor's.   He even stated what he judged was Isaac's speed just prior to the collision; & in his rear vision mirror?

Saverin said that when she heard the bang, she looked around.  She did not say she looked around when she felt the impact.  ????????

Months earlier, I phoned her, Janell Saverin, on the mobile phone number she gave Isaac at the time of the collisions.   She stated that there was no screech of brakes, that she was stationery and that Isaac just plowed into the back of her car.

By failing to give right of way to the one on her right, ie Isaac, she chose to become the "meat in the sandwich". Isaac was faced with an "inevitable collision". If there was danger of a collision, she is required to give way to the one on her right.  Clearly there was that danger. 

At the settlement conference, the three women, the "lawyer" Ingrid Martin, Janell Saverin and the female unnamed taker of copious notes for HolmanWebb Lawyers , must have synchronized as they all erupted in unison, when I said to Isaac that Saverin was rat running.   "We're entitled to do that."  they shouted in unison.   I was a "McKenzie friend" /observer and I was not to speak to the "conference" but only to Isaac and then Isaac could repeat what I said.  The three synchronized women did not even wait for Isaac to speak but directed their synchronized display at me.   In such a conference there is no room for such displays.  I wonder what they expected to achieve by that, or could they just not control themselves.



http://HaigReport.com/imagesInsuranceCompanyLawyerFraud/20141212AnotherGoogleMap225metresLamornaStToThallonSt_cr01.jpg There is the possibility that the insurance companies could say they are "unaware" of the evidence, so I shall be communicating with them each directly.  I am publishing here before I do, so I do not have to contend with a "no publication" order.   Publication has such a sterilizing effect upon corruption.

After I advise each insurance company, [RACQ Insurance and NRMA Insurance/Insurance Australia Ltd part of IAG Limited, the Insurance Australia Group listed on the ASX], of the true evidence, their continued action will show corruption and attempted fraud of Isaac.  They should check if they are being misled by their lawyers, for the lawyers' self interest.

In a three party dispute, each party will sue usually, the other two parties.   RACQ should be suing both other parties, which would include NRMA Insurance/Insurance Australia Ltd part of IAG Limited, the Insurance Australia Group listed on the ASX, as NRMA's insured vehicle collided with RACQ's insured vehicle.    RACQ Insurance cannot as they have a "knock for knock" ageement with IAG Ltd/Insurance Australia Group listed on the ASX.  A "knock for knock" ageement is that each insurance company will bear the cost of their own insured party.  Statistically, it should even out in the long run and save legal costs and court fees.   It makes good sense.  They both insurance companies and their lawyers think they will make Isaac the patsy, but the real cause of the collisions was Janell Marie Safferin and her rat running.

Both insurance companies are responsible for their own decisions.  They cannot justifiably say their lawyers made the decision for them.  Prior to this publication, each insurance company could say they did not know and were relying upon the advice of the lawyers.  Now they know.  They can quiz their lawyers.  They must make their own decision to continue this attempted fraud.

Excerpt from Civil Proceedings Act 2011

Part 5 Conferences

34 Definition for pt 5

In this part—
relevant conference means—
(a) a conference held at the court’s direction; or
(b) a conference required under the rules because there is a
claim for damages for personal injury or death.

35 Resolution agreement
(1) If, at a relevant conference, the parties agree on a resolution of
their dispute or part of it, the agreement must be written down
and signed by or for each party.
(2) The agreement has effect as a compromise.

36 Evidence from relevant conference
(1) Evidence of anything done or said, an admission made, or a
document tendered, at a relevant conference about a dispute is
admissible at the trial of the dispute or in another civil
proceeding in the court or elsewhere only if—
(a) all the parties to the dispute agree; or
(b) the evidence is an agreement under section 35.
(2) In this section—
civil proceeding does not include a civil proceeding founded
on fraud alleged to be connected with, or to have happened
during, a relevant conference.

Relevant Rules from UCPR

[Unified Civil Procedure Rules]

Division 3 Settlement conferences

523 Court may require settlement conference

(1) At any time after a notice of intention to defend and defence is
filed in a proceeding started by claim, the court may direct
that a conference (settlement conference) be held.
(2) A settlement conference may consider the following
matters—

(a) the possibility of settling the proceeding at the
settlement conference without a hearing or by referring
it to mediation;
(b) the simplification of the issues;
(c) the use of the simplified procedures;
(d) the possibility of obtaining admissions that may
facilitate the hearing or reduce costs;
(e) for proceedings other than minor debt claims—the
necessity or desirability of further pleadings or
amendments to the existing pleadings;
(f) the amount of damages;
(g) the possible length of any trial;
(h) the burden of costs a party may have to bear;
(i) anything else that may help dispose of the proceeding.
(3) The court may direct that—
(a) the settlement conference be held at the date, time and
place stated in the direction; and
(b) all parties attend personally with their counsel or
solicitor or, for a corporation, a person with authority to
compromise the claim for the corporation.
(4) However, if, in the court’s opinion, personal attendance with
counsel or solicitor would cause unreasonable hardship,
inconvenience or excessive cost to a party, the court must not
direct the personal appearance of a party with counsel or
solicitor.
(5) If the court acts on its own initiative, the court must give the
parties at least 2 business days notice of the date, time and
place of the settlement conference.
(6) At a settlement conference, each party must—
(a) be sufficiently aware of the party’s case so as to be able
to answer any question that may be asked about the
claim or defence; and

(b) be in a position to make and respond properly to an offer
of settlement.
(7) Also, each party’s counsel or solicitor must—
(a) be sufficiently aware of his or her client’s case so as to
be able to answer any question that may be asked about
the claim or defence; and
(b) be in a position to make and respond properly to an offer
of settlement.
(8) The court may adjourn a proceeding listed for hearing so a
settlement conference may be held.

524 Holding settlement conference

(1) The court must hold a settlement conference in private and for
the purpose may be constituted by a magistrate or registrar.
(2) The court may—
(a) adjourn the settlement conference; or
(b) direct that a further settlement conference be held before
the court as constituted or before the court constituted
by someone else mentioned in subrule (1); or
(c) make the suggestions the court considers appropriate to
help in promptly disposing of the proceeding; or
(d) make any orders necessary to give effect to a
memorandum signed by parties under this rule; or
(e) give a party the directions the court considers
appropriate.
(3) The court must record on the file any formal orders made by
the court at a settlement conference, but must not keep a
record of anything discussed at the conference.
(4) At a settlement conference, any 2 or more parties or their
counsel or solicitor may sign a memorandum of the results of
the conference including any admissions made by the parties.

(5) The memorandum must be attached to the file in the way the
court directs at the settlement conference.
Note—
See also the Civil Proceedings Act 2011, section 35.
(6) Unless the court otherwise orders, the costs of a settlement
conference are costs in the proceeding and may be assessed by
the court constituted for the conference, the court hearing the
proceeding, or assessed under these rules.
Note—
The Civil Proceedings Act 2011, section 36, protects the confidentiality
of things said and done, and documents tendered at a settlement
conference unless all the parties agree or the evidence is a resolution
agreement.

525 Failure to attend settlement conference

(1) This rule applies if a person directed to attend a settlement
conference fails to attend the conference.
(2) If the court is satisfied by affidavit that the person who failed
to attend was given notice of the date, time and place of the
settlement conference, the court may—
(a) if the party failing to attend is the plaintiff or the
plaintiff’s counsel or solicitor—stay or dismiss the
proceeding; or
(b) if—
(i) the party failing to attend is a defendant or the
defendant’s counsel or solicitor; and
(ii) the claim discloses a sufficient cause of action;
make the orders or give the judgment the court considers
just; or
(c) make the order for costs the court considers appropriate,
whether or not the court makes an order under paragraph
(a) or (b) or gives judgment under paragraph (b).

(3) Also, the court may give the directions for listing the
proceeding for hearing or for holding another settlement
conference the court considers appropriate in the
circumstances.
(4) If the court makes an order or gives judgment under subrule
(2), the court may, on application made within the time the
court considers reasonable, set aside the order and order a new
trial.
526 General directions about settlement conferences
Nothing in this division prevents a magistrate giving to a
registrar the general or special directions the magistrate
considers appropriate for arranging and conducting settlement
conferences.




Menu: Insurance Company Lawyer Fraud: