Jump to content

orge

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    305
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

1 Follower

About orge

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Hi, I have been having a think about my judges decisions regarding limitation and interest based on Sempra Metals. I would like to understand this more and see what others think: Limitation In the Kleinwort Benson case, there was a change in the law as a result of another case that meant the contract terms were void. Barclays argument was that there was no change in the law that the terms relating to their charges were unlawful. Additionally, the outcome of my case would not change the law as it was only a small claims decision. Furthermore, if this point was upheld, then it would
  2. It is a blow but I hope that there are some things that can be learned from this. I still believe my judge would have been unwilling to award the interest without further demonstration of the actual loss I had suffered - she didn't seem to feel that a line on a balance sheet was evidence enough and said the onus was on myself me to quantify how much I was actually out of pocket over the period restitution would be claimed. Maybe there is a better way that I could have answered this though? J
  3. I did mention unjust enrichment, although I guess again it has never been entirely clear how this squares away with the Sempra Metals case, which does concern restitution based on the loss of the claimant. J
  4. The main thrust of Barclays defence in relation to the limitation and compound interest arguments is contained in their skeleton argument: [ATTACH=CONFIG]60274[/ATTACH] On top of this, I would add that my pleading of the limitation aspect was probably fairly poor, since the fine detail of the mistake of law has always been a bit hazy to me (specifically what exactly it was, who committed it and when it was committed). That said, I ultimately don't believe that the judge would have ruled in my favour on this if I had done a better job in the hearing. Their main argument was that the law
  5. An update to my case. Defendant proposed that the judge should rule on the limitation and interest part of the claim before considering fairness or penalty clauses. Whilst I could see that this was an opportunity for them to avoid a full determination by the judge, it felt like understanding the judges view on these points would inform my position better. Ultimately, the judge determined that my arguments failed on both points. I will provide a little more detail in respect of her reasons for this later, although I am unable to add anything more in relation to the dispute.
  6. Thanks Andy. Will keep you posted with the outcome. Fingers crossed! J
  7. It's just witnesses that aren't coming ( the solicitor and bank representative). My belief is that the barrister who drew up this skeleton argument will be their to represent them. J
  8. So what would you suggest are my options and how would you recommend I deal with this? I guess I am also a bit unsure about how to deal with the hearsay evidence - should I simply ask for that this be struck out as no witness is available? I assume it is only point 10 of their original witness statement that should be removed not everything. I am feeling a little intimidated by this now, although not totally out of my depth! My legal friend said that I should expect the barrister may engage in negotiation beforehand, so I guess it would be good to understand the likelihood of m
  9. I agree, this is late breaking and especially prejudicial given that I am representing myself. In reality, there's not that much in here that goes beyond the arguments presented in the original solicitors witness statement. However, it does flesh out things in a little more and submission the day before gives me very little time to prepare or refer this. I have prepped som responses to the arguments he's put in, but i guess the first thing to do in the hearing is to ask whether this will be allowed? If so, is it fair, wise for me to continue with the hearing tomorrow or ask for more time?
  10. I've just spoken to a legal friend of mine and his interpretation of the documentation I have received is that Barclays are not sending their key witnesses (the solicitor handling the case and their own representative), but they will be sending a barrister to argue the above skeleton on their behalf (he is named at the end of the skeleton). J
  11. Just received the following skeleton argument that was likely filed with the court around 5pm today. J [ATTACH=CONFIG]60274[/ATTACH]
  12. Ok. I also notice that the last offer is not marked without prejudice. Is this because they intend to wheel this out as a a example of "unreasonableness"? How are offers of settlement disclosed to the court, as these are suppose to be kept out of the documents the judge sees initially. What would be my best response to this last minute offer? If indeed I am better to respond rather than ignoring it? J
  13. The costs they state are for a solicitors "hearing fee" and the I would expect the closest allowable expense would be this: (d) expenses which a party or witness has reasonably incurred in travelling to and from a hearing or in staying away from home for the purposes of attending a hearing (g) such further costs as the court may assess by the summary procedure and order to be paid by a party who has behaved unreasonably; and I would expect d is hard to argue if they don't turn up! So it's only if I am deemed to be unreasonable. I'm just about to go and check the last bundle of do
  14. Oops, I meant 27.9.1a, as they haven't given myself and (presumably) the court 7 days notice they are not going to attend the hearing. There are no new documents. j
  15. Also, what about this: https://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part27#27.9 They haven't complied with point 27.9b by giving me notice today. J
×
×
  • Create New...