5A
5adaytelly
I think Judge Rinder is quite good, however at times I can't seem to take him seriously! If any of you understand what I mean 
MU
Wasn't much to be understood - it's pretty simple what you said! Haha
I think Judge Rinder is quite good, however at times I can't seem to take him seriously! If any of you understand what I mean
Wasn't much to be understood - it's pretty simple what you said! Haha
JO
Publicly probably not. But I imagine it'll be down to the budget so effectively over a series yes. As the popularity grows it'll probably increase.
Think of it as a gameshow, offers on DOND and The Chase increased as the shows became more established and firm fixtures. I expect amount ITV is prepared to payout will increase as Judge Rinder grows.
Is there a limit set on the amount that either party can claim?
Publicly probably not. But I imagine it'll be down to the budget so effectively over a series yes. As the popularity grows it'll probably increase.
Think of it as a gameshow, offers on DOND and The Chase increased as the shows became more established and firm fixtures. I expect amount ITV is prepared to payout will increase as Judge Rinder grows.
Last edited by Jon on 13 August 2014 11:16pm - 2 times in total
BA
It depends how the funds are allocated. For Judge Judy, neither party actually pays any money - all monetary awards come from the production company.
I don't think we even know whether the show is legally binding, or what legal procedure they are using - presumably it's arbitration.
If it is arbitration (which is binding except in limited circumstances), there is no legal limit, though in cases where the amount that is being sought is above £10,000 it is recommended not to use arbitration.
EDIT: The programme description specifically mentions Small Claims, which is less than £10,000 (or less than £1,000 for personal injury claims and tenants claiming against their landlords for repairs).
I don't know if the Judge Judy route is being used over here (paying the amount on behalf of the person whom the judgement comes against) - it probably depends on the costs of doing so, and the legal aspects over here. My educated guess is that ITV are not paying any amounts awarded.
Is there a limit set on the amount that either party can claim?
It depends how the funds are allocated. For Judge Judy, neither party actually pays any money - all monetary awards come from the production company.
I don't think we even know whether the show is legally binding, or what legal procedure they are using - presumably it's arbitration.
If it is arbitration (which is binding except in limited circumstances), there is no legal limit, though in cases where the amount that is being sought is above £10,000 it is recommended not to use arbitration.
EDIT: The programme description specifically mentions Small Claims, which is less than £10,000 (or less than £1,000 for personal injury claims and tenants claiming against their landlords for repairs).
I don't know if the Judge Judy route is being used over here (paying the amount on behalf of the person whom the judgement comes against) - it probably depends on the costs of doing so, and the legal aspects over here. My educated guess is that ITV are not paying any amounts awarded.
Last edited by bilky asko on 13 August 2014 11:39pm - 3 times in total
MO
Watched the episode with the bad wedding photog and the used Jag bought on ebay. Wasnt too impressed. I'm not a finding Rinder a likable person. Sorry, he was a bit too "camp" for me to take seriously as a "judge". I know our court systems are different, but he talks wayyy too much. Im a Judge Judy fan. This show has promise, but it certainly needs bit more tighter editing. Dont like the recap at the end. Completely unnecessary IMO.
FYI. Judge Judy and most tv court shows have a $5000 ceiling usually. Last year some pillock created Justice Central tv channel. 24 hours of court shows. But not Judge Judy
FYI. Judge Judy and most tv court shows have a $5000 ceiling usually. Last year some pillock created Justice Central tv channel. 24 hours of court shows. But not Judge Judy
BA
Yes, I thought the limit was $5000 - if the limit for Judge Rinder is £10,000 (~$16,500), then that's a significant difference in what cases may be arbitrated.
The supposedly camp aspect of Rinder's manner should help with international distribution if successful here (it's a "gimmick" that's not been tried with any of the US court shows has it? Never mind the fact he's from the UK, enough of a gimmick in itself in the US), but it also fits in with our cultural sensibilities - you don't need to be loud, brash, stereotypically butch, or heterosexual over here to be a good judge, or barrister for that matter.
Still, I don't know why they insisted on the inclusion of a gavel and block in the titles. I haven't seen the programme all the way through yet - does he do an auction at the end to keep Bargain Hunt fans interested?
Watched the episode with the bad wedding photog and the used Jag bought on ebay. Wasnt too impressed. I'm not a finding Rinder a likable person. Sorry, he was a bit too "camp" for me to take seriously as a "judge". I know our court systems are different, but he talks wayyy too much. Im a Judge Judy fan. This show has promise, but it certainly needs bit more tighter editing. Dont like the recap at the end. Completely unnecessary IMO.
FYI. Judge Judy and most tv court shows have a $5000 ceiling usually. Last year some pillock created Justice Central tv channel. 24 hours of court shows. But not Judge Judy
FYI. Judge Judy and most tv court shows have a $5000 ceiling usually. Last year some pillock created Justice Central tv channel. 24 hours of court shows. But not Judge Judy
Yes, I thought the limit was $5000 - if the limit for Judge Rinder is £10,000 (~$16,500), then that's a significant difference in what cases may be arbitrated.
The supposedly camp aspect of Rinder's manner should help with international distribution if successful here (it's a "gimmick" that's not been tried with any of the US court shows has it? Never mind the fact he's from the UK, enough of a gimmick in itself in the US), but it also fits in with our cultural sensibilities - you don't need to be loud, brash, stereotypically butch, or heterosexual over here to be a good judge, or barrister for that matter.
Still, I don't know why they insisted on the inclusion of a gavel and block in the titles. I haven't seen the programme all the way through yet - does he do an auction at the end to keep Bargain Hunt fans interested?
MD
Yes, I thought the limit was $5000 - if the limit for Judge Rinder is £10,000 (~$16,500), then that's a significant difference in what cases may be arbitrated.
The supposedly camp aspect of Rinder's manner should help with international distribution if successful here (it's a "gimmick" that's not been tried with any of the US court shows has it? Never mind the fact he's from the UK, enough of a gimmick in itself in the US), but it also fits in with our cultural sensibilities - you don't need to be loud, brash, stereotypically butch, or heterosexual over here to be a good judge, or barrister for that matter.
Still, I don't know why they insisted on the inclusion of a gavel and block in the titles. I haven't seen the programme all the way through yet - does he do an auction at the end to keep Bargain Hunt fans interested?
I'm guessing the American style court layout, and the Gavel are all there for international sales, so the show can sit alongside Judge Judy etc
Watched the episode with the bad wedding photog and the used Jag bought on ebay. Wasnt too impressed. I'm not a finding Rinder a likable person. Sorry, he was a bit too "camp" for me to take seriously as a "judge". I know our court systems are different, but he talks wayyy too much. Im a Judge Judy fan. This show has promise, but it certainly needs bit more tighter editing. Dont like the recap at the end. Completely unnecessary IMO.
FYI. Judge Judy and most tv court shows have a $5000 ceiling usually. Last year some pillock created Justice Central tv channel. 24 hours of court shows. But not Judge Judy
FYI. Judge Judy and most tv court shows have a $5000 ceiling usually. Last year some pillock created Justice Central tv channel. 24 hours of court shows. But not Judge Judy
Yes, I thought the limit was $5000 - if the limit for Judge Rinder is £10,000 (~$16,500), then that's a significant difference in what cases may be arbitrated.
The supposedly camp aspect of Rinder's manner should help with international distribution if successful here (it's a "gimmick" that's not been tried with any of the US court shows has it? Never mind the fact he's from the UK, enough of a gimmick in itself in the US), but it also fits in with our cultural sensibilities - you don't need to be loud, brash, stereotypically butch, or heterosexual over here to be a good judge, or barrister for that matter.
Still, I don't know why they insisted on the inclusion of a gavel and block in the titles. I haven't seen the programme all the way through yet - does he do an auction at the end to keep Bargain Hunt fans interested?
I'm guessing the American style court layout, and the Gavel are all there for international sales, so the show can sit alongside Judge Judy etc
JO
I'm going to guess the losing party isn't having to pay out, as all you ever hear is "this court awards you", no reference is ever made to the defendant having to fork out the money. It also begs the question why would the defendant agree to appear if there is still a chance they'd have to pay out. If you're running a photography business for example it's not great publicity.
To a certain extent maybe but it's probably for the UK viewers who are familiar with Judge Judy just as much as they're familiar with this layout too and to give them the impression it's a our own version of those shows.
My educated guess is that ITV are not paying any amounts awarded.
I'm going to guess the losing party isn't having to pay out, as all you ever hear is "this court awards you", no reference is ever made to the defendant having to fork out the money. It also begs the question why would the defendant agree to appear if there is still a chance they'd have to pay out. If you're running a photography business for example it's not great publicity.
I'm guessing the American style court layout, and the Gavel are all there for international sales, so the show can sit alongside Judge Judy etc
To a certain extent maybe but it's probably for the UK viewers who are familiar with Judge Judy just as much as they're familiar with this layout too and to give them the impression it's a our own version of those shows.
MD
I believe both sides have to agree to abide by the ruling, and they balance whether or not, they think they can get the "judge" on side, or that their case is strong enough. And I would guess they are paid something for their appearance on the show - so better than taking the chance in a real court.
I guess because of all the US legal shows, they wanted to present something familiar to TV viewers, instead of presenting something more relevant to our legal system. Of course, there was also that show Guilty, which was the closest we got in the UK to a court show...
I'm going to guess the losing party isn't having to pay out, as all you ever hear is "this court awards you", no reference is ever made to the defendant having to fork out the money. It also begs the question why would the defendant agree to appear if there is still a chance they'd have to pay out. If you're running a photography business for example it's not great publicity.
I believe both sides have to agree to abide by the ruling, and they balance whether or not, they think they can get the "judge" on side, or that their case is strong enough. And I would guess they are paid something for their appearance on the show - so better than taking the chance in a real court.
To a certain extent maybe but it's probably for the UK viewers who are familiar with Judge Judy just as much as they're familiar with this layout too and to give them the impression it's a our own version of those shows.
I guess because of all the US legal shows, they wanted to present something familiar to TV viewers, instead of presenting something more relevant to our legal system. Of course, there was also that show Guilty, which was the closest we got in the UK to a court show...