It depresses me because it was one that should have been won; even had I gone into court drunk, swearing at the judge and without any preparation at all, bugger it, even if I'd gone to the wrong court!! It was an open goal.
What went wrong? The judge. The lower courts are stuffed to the brim with inept ones. Some lawyers have ambitions of being judges and the role of county court judge is often the first step on that path. Too many crappy lawyers get the role of district judge. In part this is due to the shortage of lower court judges, in the UK at least, and I think standards are not all they should be. The Lord Chancellor appoints anyone just to cover the shortage.
In my case glaring errors in my opponents case were glossed over as mere technical defects, in defiance of precedence. Supporting case law was ignored or misunderstood and the basis of statutory interepretation completely misunderstood.
Of course you can make the case that I have this view since I lost and I'm biased. That's true to a degree but I have had and seen many other similar cases where these flaws have not arisen where I've won and lost on a well based judgement. It's not merely losing that's pissed me off, it really is about the quality of judges.
To compound it my client is too poor to appeal, which is the only hope of him getting the right decision. Litigation really is expensive. Justice is open to all? yea, jut like the doors of the Ritz.
I sincerely hope the judge in the SCO case is better and they arent starting off in the equivalent of a district court!!