This OP has been posting on this thread since March 2014 on the same subject.

Any normal person would have got the message that he is "flogging a dead horse".

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.

He refuses to accept any advice and goes off on a tangent on totally irrelevant points.

The world does not owe him a living so after wasting three and a halfs years of his life on totally peurile arguments what I can only sugest is that you forget your alleged problems and get on with your life

This is a new thread which has nothing to do with my thread of three and half years ago. This is the problem with having put together all my threads. People get confused and mix up in their mind all my threads. Obviously this affects their replies to my threads

I would have preferred to have my new thread kept separate

It has everything to do with your habit of focusing on irrelevant minutiae, and arguing ad nauseam about them, or whatever new matter you introduce when you arem't getting people to agree (which seems pretty frequent).

People aren't confused, just fed up.

I guess, sometimes, (regarding your preference for a new thread):

you can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

You can't always get what you want

But if you try sometime you find

You get what you need

This is a new thread which has nothing to do with my thread of three and half years ago. This is the problem with having put together all my threads. People get confused and mix up in their mind all my threads. Obviously this affects their replies to my threads

 

I would have preferred to have my new thread kept separate

It's impossible for people to advise if they don't have background, resources. Does your new query relate to a different thread then?

HB

It is the way I do the things. When there is still some doubts I do my best to find a solution to a problem.

And to do this I have to follow all possible leads even though those which could look like being only details but which could nevertheless contain important information.

I notice that some members of this forum have difficulties to accept when I am right and this leads to endless conversation.

For example concerning the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person"

if I am right I would like to be told that I am right or to be explained why I am wrong

There is no need to put together all my threads to have enough background to understand my new thread

because it has nothing to do with the other threads

people could get confused if you for example mix up threads about employment with threads like my new thread about Civil Litigations

Oh please God not another thread

It is also a question of accessibility because by putting all my threads together you force me and the other members of this forum to go through all my threads and their numerous posts to access my new thread which is not convenient

It is also a question of accessibility because by putting all my threads together you force me and the other members of this forum to go through all my threads and their numerous posts to access my new thread which is not convenient

Untrue. If they click on the title of the thread under "new posts" it jumps to the last page.

What it does mean is that once on that last page it is easy for them to see that your threads ramble on with you arguing over minutiae. This way they can make a more informed choice if they want to spend time on a reply .....

(incidentally, I'm aware this reply will likely have NO IMPACT on 'resources', but other CAG'ers who aren't yet aware of that might find it useful), which is my reason for posting it.

The applicable rules are in CPR 3.4(2), which states as follows:

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

It usually CPR 3.4(2)(a) which is used.

The court would not usually strike out a claim for minor non-compliance by a litigant in person. The court would however strike out claims which appear to be hopeless.

It seems unlikely that your claim was struck out only because you stated facts rather than law (or law rather than facts). I think we would need to know the full story before we are able to offer sensible advice.

You can lead a horse to water...

.....

The applicable rules are in CPR 3.4(2), which states as follows:

 

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

© that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

 

 

It usually CPR 3.4(2)(a) which is used.

 

The court would not usually strike out a claim for minor non-compliance by a litigant in person. The court would however strike out claims which appear to be hopeless.

 

It seems unlikely that your claim was struck out only because you stated facts rather than law (or law rather than facts). I think we would need to know the full story before we are able to offer sensible advice.

Noooo! that'd be much too sensible.

You need, instead, to start a discussion (as 'resources' did) over whether it is essential that the Precedent H example given at the end of the Handbook is labelled Appendix A or not ........ not that Precedent H (which relates to costs) has anything to do with the case being struck out!.

If you try to be sensible you'll get told (again) that they don't need to supply the details of the claim, as they've given us all we need in their summary.

Expect to hear that Appendix 8.14 is what needs discussion (leaving aside it is in a handbook, not the CPR).

1.

Not all members of this forum think to click on the button “new posts”. I was myself even not aware that this button existed. Moreover when I click on it several threads appear except mine which is evidence that having put all my threads together has somehow messed up the things

2.

The fact that I have maybe or maybe not ramble in some of my previous threads does not mean that I will do the same in this new thread because each thread has its particularities. The consequence of putting all my threads together is that some members of this forum will be pushed off from responding to my new thread because as you say they will think wrongly that they are wasting their time which will deprive the others members of this forum and me from important information that we can get from my new thread if it was properly processed

3.

My claim was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2). My claim concerns the non-compliance of several laws. The judge has dismissed my claim because my claim concerning the non-compliance of these laws was hopeless except for one law but for this law he says that my case is not properly pleaded because I make reference only to facts but not to this law in my claim form and in my particular of claims. Therefore if I can prove that the judge is wrong at least concerning this point I can hope to have his decision to strike out my claim cancelled. I order to do so I think that it will be good we concentrate on the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" and its link with CPR 16.2 and 16.4 which say that we have to provide a concise statement of facts

Expect to hear that Appendix 8.14 is what needs discussion (leaving aside it is in a handbook, not the CPR).

and it only took 1 hour 19 minutes for my prediction to come good.

I order to do so I think that it will be good we concentrate on the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document “A_Handbook_for_Litigants_in_Person" and its link with CPR 16.2 and 16.4 which say that we have to provide a concise statement of facts

Wow! Why haven't you raised this essential issue before?

I mean, you've only asked about it 9 times in less than 3 days ....... with no sign anyone else thinks it is important / relevant.

Clearly it needs its own thread!!

(No, it doesn't need its own thread, and this thread is probably past its sell by date, too).

Asking the same question repeatedly won't help you, and having it in its own thread won't make a difference, either.....

1.

Not all members of this forum think to click on the button “new posts”. I was myself even not aware that this button existed. Moreover when I click on it several threads appear except mine which is evidence that having put all my threads together has somehow messed up the things

'New posts' only shows you, well, 'new posts'.

It'd show your thread if there had been a new post to it since the last time you checked.

I think this has now run its course and serves no purpose.

Thread closed.

Andy