The case I was referring to was heard in February!!!!!

The case Bailiff Advice was referring to was last week.

Not sure how I'm being petulant. It seems that between yourself, Bailiff Advice and wonkeydonkey, you claim to be privvy to the details of this case, but then claim you don't have the details as the transcript has yet to be released. As I said, on Sunday Bailiff Advice assured us they would be posting the case details in the next day or two yet nothing has surfaced. However it seems that you three are freely sharing the details amongst yourselves leaving not just me, but everyone else on these boards in the dark. I find it very strange.

Work committments permitting, I should hopefully be able to start a new thread about the case later today.

As you know, I have a passion for accuracy so I will make a couple of comments. The case itself concluded quite some time ago (17th February to be precise). All parties were in court and Judgment was given. Leave to appeal was REFUSED.

Due only to time constraints, the Judge was unable to consider the matter of costs on 17th February. Accordingly, a new hearing date was set for May 10th. At that hearing, he Judge considered representation from all parties and made an order that Mr B must pay £7,000.

I will not be making any further comments on this thread about the case. I will start a new discussion thread later on.

PS: As mentioned above, Judgment was handed down on 17th February 2017. Once judgment is made, it is a public record and can therefore be referred to and copied (which I have done).

I think there is a reliance on someone that attended the court to send emails to interested parties. And it depends on how the case went as to whether they want to share the information or not.

Remember when the car was taken on HP and the judge said there was beneficial interest. We saw a burst of excitement feeding its way online and a long thread. Then when further court cases found no beneficial interest existed with the debtor until the finance was paid up and a finance company could not be forced to sell, there was a very loud silence. Trying to get information from the source seemed to be very difficult.

People only pay for transcripts if they are really helpful to them given the cost.

I think there is a reliance on someone that attended the court to send emails to interested parties. And it depends on how the case went as to whether they want to share the information or not.

 

Remember when the car was taken on HP and the judge said there was beneficial interest. We saw a burst of excitement feeding its way online and a long thread. Then when further court cases found no beneficial interest existed with the debtor until the finance was paid up and a finance company could not be forced to sell, there was a very loud silence. Trying to get information from the source seemed to be very difficult.

 

People only pay for transcripts if they are really helpful to them given the cost.

I agree. I do find it disturbing that a member on here is fed details of such cases, even those subject to sub-judice. We all know the reason why and it is, at the very least, immature,

However moving on - yes I agree with those dates Bailiff Advice, I was reading some of my notes incorrectly. However I have it on good authority that at least a partial copy of the judgement has been seen by wonkeydonkey, so why then need for all the secrecy is beyond me.

also the ones which appear on the public databases of course. All this is a little spurious and just distracts from the issues. IMO. Which is of course what it is designed to do.

I dont think that is really what happened with HP UB, but again off topic for this thread.

I agree. I do find it disturbing that a member on here is fed details of such cases, even those subject to sub-judice. We all know the reason why and it is, at the very least, immature,

 

However moving on - yes I agree with those dates Bailiff Advice, I was reading some of my notes incorrectly. However I have it on good authority that at least a partial copy of the judgement has been seen by wonkeydonkey, so why then need for all the secrecy is beyond me.

This is just symptom of your long standing vendetta and serves no purpose.

If details are correct i for one do not care where they came from.

It is the case that matters in my opinion i am not interested in some fengling regarding costs. The incorrect information which is rife on the web was blown out of the water, and this is what needs to be shown.

Oh and there is no sub judice , the case has been heard.

Post unapproved...wondered when it would get personal...normally quicker than 2 days.

Andy

I agree. I do find it disturbing that a member on here is fed details of such cases, even those subject to sub-judice. We all know the reason why and it is, at the very least, immature,

 

However moving on - yes I agree with those dates Bailiff Advice, I was reading some of my notes incorrectly. However I have it on good authority that at least a partial copy of the judgement has been seen by wonkeydonkey, so why then need for all the secrecy is beyond me.

Your 'good authority' is superfluous given that I have posted on this matter here on cag and elsewhere, without denial to having seen 'partial copy' of the judgment in question.

Sub judice does not apply when you are discussing matters of law even if there is a case to which this is a relavant matter.

Some freemen friend are doubtlessly conducting a case using the Magna Carta, doesn't stop us discussing King Johns faux paux does it.

Fengling is a misspelling of the word finagling as i would have thought any intelligent person would have been able to decipher.

Now on topic please.