It's not coincidence.

 

It's clearly a conspiracy!.

Andyorch is obviously psychic and KNEW you'd agree to finally post up the complete defence after months of people asking you to do so, and he figured he'd ask ABOUT the APPEAL before you finally agreed.

 

Add him to the long list of co-conspirators : the solicitor, their insurer and their solicitor, the judge, the court staff, me, and anyone who disagrees with you or asks you to post up details (so as to be able to give you reliable answers and not just what you want to hear).

 

Ohh, and all of CAG, who lured you into giving the donation you now want back.

How deep does the conspiracy go?

Oh its a conspiracy now is it?

Again you are leaving yourself wide open by moving onto yer another theory this time conspiracy

That said you have made me chuckle as to suggest that a solicitor insurance company and judge and a plant would never do anything like that because them type of people have never been labelled or outed for doing this type of low grade crime which comes with a high grade outcome not if but in this matter when all the cowardly ducking and diving has been exhausted.

And who mentioned me being lured into making a donation or is this just another myth to add to a long list that you peddle on a fairly regular basis.

Sorry Callum1999, am i missing something??

 

You are continually being asked to post up the Defence/Appeal you submitted so people can give an honest opinion on that defence. That is all, so why do you continually going off tangent and incite dissent?

 

You seem to be an Agent Provocateur or inciting agent so please, end this and just post up your defence or comment no more.

 

People are only trying to help and act with honest intentions, and that advice given is Free

OK OD maybe you will be able to answer the main question.

If a solicitor has relied on a defence and based or could only base that defence in any event with a legitimate contract being in place which is not been the case any defence based on that quite significant fact is was and will always be worthless.

I am not disputing a solicitor has the right to defend a claim what i am disputing is that to be able to put himself in a position of a defence he or she would need to follow the main criteria of having a contract as to represent and thereafter to defend that representation if questioned.

The Defence is far from worthless and shows clearly that they weren't negligent with your PI claim. The Defence is why your claim was struck out so it's directly relevant to your appeal.

 

It is vitally important that you show us BOTH the end of the Defence and your full appeal.

The Defence GM and any judgements based has been based on a legitimate contract being in place.

The case has been struck out and the appeal to that case being struck out is was and has been denied by the solicitor is currently breaching DP as a means of not being able to establish what is the most significant point in the case.

Just stop arguing with Bazza and please post up what had been asked for.

OK OD maybe you will be able to answer the main question.

 

If a solicitor has relied on a defence and based or could only base that defence in any event with a legitimate contract being in place which is not been the case any defence based on that quite significant fact is was and will always be worthless.

 

I am not disputing a solicitor has the right to defend a claim what i am disputing is that to be able to put himself in a position of a defence he or she would need to follow the main criteria of having a contract as to represent and thereafter to defend that representation if questioned.

Your last paragraph is just yet more gobbledygook.

Can you please just help us to help you.

The Defence GM and any judgements based has been based on a legitimate contract being in place.

 

The case has been struck out and the appeal to that case being struck out is was and has been denied by the solicitor is currently breaching DP as a means of not being able to establish what is the most significant point in the case.

I can see that this thread is just going to go around in circles like your last one and so I'll try and refrain from posting anymore until you put up the Defence and appeal in full.

The solicitor and his legal team have in evidence stated that i was being legally represented on the grounds that public funding had been the source as to represent.

Legal Aid are stating that there is no trace of legal funding being claimed nor giving that supports that claim the complete opposite.

The claim was struck out based on previous cases which were used successfully and within the scope that i was claiming.

Problem that i have with that is that the three previous cases that have been relied upon to secure the same results would have been based on each and everyone of those other solicitors working under a legitimate contract.

You cannot just assume this to be and the judge before the hearing was told and had dismissed an application that disputed the contract which goes one step further i would suggest.

The solicitor and his legal team have in evidence stated that i was being legally represented on the grounds that public funding had been the source as to represent.

 

Legal Aid are stating that there is no trace of legal funding being claimed nor giving that supports that claim the complete opposite.

 

The claim was struck out based on previous cases which were used successfully and within the scope that i was claiming.

 

Problem that i have with that is that the three previous cases that have been relied upon to secure the same results would have been based on each and everyone of those other solicitors working under a legitimate contract.

 

You cannot just assume this to be and the judge before the hearing was told and had dismissed an application that disputed the contract which goes one step further i would suggest.

Ohh, why didn't you say so before!?

(This is just a repeat of the last 25+ times the OP has said this or similar on their other thread!).

If the OP is just trying to reopen their closed thread here, instead of complying with posting their appeal : at what point should this thread be closed, too?

I rest my case

The solicitor and his lack of a legitimate contract and any lack as to address this is all i need to know.

Thanks to all those who contributed, it was appreciated.

Can i now request my post be closed as i have now been giving the advice that was needed. thanks

And who mentioned me being lured into making a donation or is this just another myth to add to a long list that you peddle on a fairly regular basis.

2 1/2 days ago (0:03 on 17/9/16), the opening post of this thread

the donation/s that i have made for this forum to help people like me, any advice on getting the donation back into my bank account because i do not want to fund nor be associated with a supposed public service that cherry picks the questions

I rest my case

 

The solicitor and his lack of a legitimate contract and any lack as to address this is all i need to know.

 

Thanks to all those who contributed, it was appreciated.

 

Can i now request my post be closed as i have now been giving the advice that was needed. thanks

Last post from me on the issue.

You have already been told by several posters that the contract issue is not relevant and is a red herring. It doesn't affect your negligence claim as you accept you instructed the solicitor on several occasions to do various things.

Your negligence claim was for being slow in applying for an injunction (not negligence) and not reserving a right to bring a PI claim despite it already being issued, struck out and statute barred (again not negligence).

Your PoC were woefully inadequate and showed no cause of action and was rightly struck out IMO.

The contract and funding issues don't alter the above at all.

your wish is our command

thread closed

dx