Hebrides News

TripAdvisor court tactic is denounced          12/10/12

Outside the court Mr Gollin denounced Tripadvisor’s move to shift a more expensive civil court procedure as a tactic to get him to drop the controversial case.

Mr Gollin said he could not afford to fight the case in the ordinary civil court and would be forced to abandon his dispute.

In court last month, his lawyer Duncan Burd argued that while TripAdvisor’s position is it is a Massachusetts-based organisation, the “harmful event” took place in Uig, on Lewis and thus the Stornoway court had jurisdiction.

In addition, he pointed out TripAdvisor had a designated office at 7 Soho Square in London which puts “the defenders in the member state.”

Thursday was the sixth time the case was called and time had been reserved at Stornoway Sheriff Court to finally hear legal arguments about the jurisdiction.

However, after months of heavy resistance, TripAdvisor’s lawyer, Stornoway solicitor Angus Macdonald, confirmed it was dropping that challenge.

If it goes ahead, the case will now pivot on the legal interpretation of TripAdvisor website’s terms and under the basis of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977.

Mr Macdonald told Sheriff Mackenzie that complicated questions regarding contract law were too complex for the small clams procure.

He said TripAdvisor intended people who registered with them would accept “certain terms and conditions.”

He said people used the “site at their own risk.”

Mr Burd reminded the court that the small claims procedure was consciously “designed to be quick, cheap and easy to use”

He said its simple “user-friendly” system meant avoided the need for people to hire expensive solicitors for claims up to £3000.

Mr Burd highlighted that legal arguments over contract law was often raised within the small claims court.

He highlighted it was suitable for Mr Gollin who had “lost bookings” due to Trip advisor “allowing false entries to be posted.”

TripAdvisor had a duty of care and the case was “quite straight forward and not complex.”

Mr Burd stressed that bumping up the case to the higher civil procedure “opens it up to a huge volume of expenses” which was contrary to the heart of the “cheap, user-friendly” small claims system.

He pointed out it would not even take half a day for an evidential hearing with two or three witness to progress the small claims action.

Richard Gollin told the sheriff that TripAdvisor spent weeks trying to transfer the case to Massachusetts, now it sought a way where they could expose him to unlimited expenses.

Sheriff Colin Scott Mackenzie told Mr Gollin: “I do have sympathy for you.”

Remitting the case to the higher civil court he added: “There are matters of certain difficulties here, potentially.”

He added, under the small claims procedure, there was no “right of appeal on the facts.”