Long term casual worker and sending of P45

All this is too complicated I would have to buy tipex to blank some information and now the shops are closed and tomorrow is Sunday.

You can believe me what is stated in my claim form is not so important. It will be something like A told bad things to B about me and B did bad things to me following the bad things A told him about me..etc i.e. only facts but no law

I am more interested in knowing whether or not I am right concerning the interpretation of paragraph 8.14 of the document called “A_Handbook_for_Liti gants _in_Person” and about any authorities linked to the issue raised by this document about law and/or facts in the claim form

Had you even read 8.14 before your case was struck out?
Your case wasn’t struck out because you relied on paragraph 8.14 ....... there was the whole rest of the document.
Appendices A, Y and X not being present (or easily found) weren’t the issue either.

If you can’t be bothered to focus on what matters & allow people to help you, it makes it look like you just want to argue over trivia (& not for the first time : one of the reasons I suggested earlier not to de-merge this from a previous thread!)

Originally Posted by BazzaS

IMO : It should stand as merged. OP’s posting style and history is relevant background.

You want to argue your claim form is “not too important”?.
Yet it is what was (or wasn’t) stated in it that goes to the heart of your claim being struck out!!

There is plenty of confidential information in my claim form and if I want to blank all the contents of my claim form will not make any sense. The summary I gave to you is better.

I did not know paragraph 8.14 when I issued my claim so it could not have been struck out because I relied on it. However it was struck out because I did not put forward the law which was broken and paragraph 8.14 says that I did not need to do so. Hence I would like to know if the judge erred in law but only concerning this issue because even if my claim was struck out for several reasons I am interested only in this reason?

Why dont the moderators lock out this OP and put him out of his misery If you keep responding to his drivel you will still be doing it ad-infinitum he has been moaning and whinging about the advice he gets. His feeling of self importance is only matched by his perception that everyone should treat his complaints seriously

I would like to know for what 'OP' stand for?

OP= original poster.
Not replying because you dont take advice and argue an unimportant insignificant point to the Nth degree

In threads relating to benefit overpayments it can mean “Over payment”, and I’m sure it can mean many other things in different contexts, but here, in this context it is pretty clear ‘OP’ is ‘original poster’, so : ‘you’, ‘poster : resources’.

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

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

Originally Posted by resources

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.

You can lead a horse to water...


.....

Originally Posted by steampowered

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
(c) 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).