Some of our corporate clients inevitably pick up bad debt from defaulting debtors on a regular basis.
Their options are:
(a) employ full time litigators to handle all their litigation suffering the ebbs and flows and consequential commitment to salary payments that may or may not be justified, depending on volume and value of litigation
(b) outsource litigation to completely unknown litigators who are part of a large litigation pool or department, and hope a good and honourable service will ensue
(c) choose a litigation team they know, who have a track record of settling, winning judgments and if necessary on a default basis, and understand enforcement principles and costs
Hughes Krupica is used to taking on multiple debt claims for its corporate clients under category (c) above. Our litigators have actually worked with each other for many years and therefore there is an efficiency between them in terms of understanding the strategy to be applied, who will go to court and when, who will prepare evidence, testimony and who will cross examine.
Hughes Krupica will treat every case seriously, even small claims forming part of a series of debts or larger debt. Hughes Krupica will also avoid the deliberate prevarication and delays of many litigators who use their calendars to gain additional fees for non-productive days.
Once a judgment is issued, Hughes Krupica will not remain idle, and will set about a systematic and determined enforcement strategy to work with the Legal Execution Department to seize assets. If bank accounts are known – they will be frozen, other motions will be filed to prevent dissipation of assets, including if necessary injunctions.
Our corporate clients include domestic Thai companies. We see the placement of trust in our litigation service, as a placement of trust in a key aspect of work which affects their balance sheet; profit and loss and accounts receivables management.
