Some people claiming personal injury compensation insist on taking their claims all the way to a hearing before a judge in court. They just want to have their day in court even when there is a sensible offer on the table.
There are two points about going all the way to a full hearing and the litigation risks inherent in a court claim:
1. A court, whether county or high court is a jury. Like any jury system two different judges could come to the opposite conclusions on the same evidence. Any personal injury claim is therefore dependent on how the judge sees the evidence and depends, to an extent, on who the judge is.
2. Where the other person is denying the fact that she was to blame for the accident or illness and any loss you might have suffered, the court must consider your evidence on a balance of probabilities.
To quote Lord Hoffman, in this case:
"It would need more cogent evidence to satisfy [a judge] that the creature seen walking in Regent's Park was more likely than not to have been a lioness than to be satisfied to the same standard of probability that it was an Alsatian."
What is the difference between succeeding on the balance of probabilities and failing on the balance of probabilities?
If the evidence is such that the judge can say I think it more probable than not you will win your claim, but if the probabilities are equal you will lose your case.
To Express that in percentage terms, if a judge concludes that it is 50% likely that your claim is right, then you will lose. By contrast, if the judge concludes that it is 51% likely that your case is right then you will win your injury claim.
You may well ask how the judge is expected to measure the probabilities of a case to 1%! That is the risk you take when you decide to take your claim to a full court hearing.