Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by scubatony

  1. Typical I ask for "Anybody, had, dealings-with, Judicial-Conduct-Investigations-Office" as seen in the title to the thread. What do I get somebody who has the best intentions and copies and pastes direct from their website, https://judicialconduct.judiciary .gov.uk/ which I am quite able to undertake.
  2. Hi there There are many many people reading these threads, and now the CAG is viewable on Twitter it is even more so. Put it like this, if I had found a really good deal on a new car and there was only one vehicle left do you seriously think I would tell all and sundry, "no of course not". I have sent you a p.m. Tony No but looking at your past posts I do believe you would ask advise about the performance of the car but refuse to give details about the make and model, probably just stating it had " four wheels and is green". What's the point in seeking advice when you don't give enough information in the first place? I wish you well. Thanks for your advice
  3. Hi there I am about to start proceedings against somebody in the judiciary and by a quick search I have found this website https://judicialconduct.judiciary.gov.uk/ . Before I delve headlong into it has anybody had dealings with this Investigations Office ? All replies answered.
  4. **********************Please close this thread**********************
  5. Yes Cardiff University, I spoke to the Senior Lecturer during the recess and he did not want to get involved because the initial case is so complicated.
  6. You cannot as a rule take a case Direct to Strasbourg without first going through all levels of the member state National courts. That is why on any [url="http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?419198-You-have-received-a-Claim-What-you-need-to-do.-**UPDATED-April-2014"]claim form[/url][img=http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/autolinker/images/link3.gif] it will state if the claim is subject to the HRA 1998. That means right from the [url="http://www.consumerforums.com/resources/legal-guides-and-manuals/53-small-claims-procedure-a-practical-guide.html"]county court[/url][img=http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/autolinker/images/link3.gif] appealed to the Supreme court. In ECHR parlance, this is classed as all domestic routes, been there done that.
  7. [url="http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Notes_for_Filling_in_the_Application_Form_2014_1_ENG.pdf"][color=#417394]http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/No...2014_1_ENG.pdf[/color][/url] There are some guidance notes in the pdf above. Been there done that, but thanks anyway.
  8. Yes As you are a Mod can I send you a pm with a brief description, a very brief description. Tony
  9. Help needed filling in the E.C.H.R form. Due to the sensitive nature of this, I do not want to give to much away on an open Forum. If you can advise me and have experience of filling in these forms please contact me via p.m All p.m's will be answered
  10. Now thats what I call a reply. THANKS so much This is EXACTLY what I was looking for. Can I say it yet again. Thanks Regards Tony
  11. Thanks for your considered reply to the content of my thread
  12. Hi there people Does anybody have either a link or information for in which order multitrack documents should be presented in County Court. i.e when oppening the lever arch file, how should it read ? All that I have found is a very brief two items; First.Court documentation Second. Evidential bundle My claim is so much more than that, or am I reading to much into the term "evidential bundle" ? Questions that I am asking myself 1 Court documentation 1a) Does it relate to everything, a]Case Management hearing b]Court Order c]Notice of Trial Date d]Allocation to Multi-track 2 Evidential bundle a]A considerable amount of my information is undated, so how do I list that ? b]Some of my documentation is taken from the public domain, though the date shows that is was taken after the event. c]Letters between solicitors, do they go in a different section ? Lastly, do I include the skeleton argument before the Court documentation ?
  13. ericsbrother I have never said my speed was less than indicated ! ! ! ! Part of my thread “it had climbed up to 84mph it can have only been for a matter of seconds.” BazzaS http://metro.co.uk/2008/06/25/genius-who-failed-to-do-the-maths-218415/ http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorkshire/8132032.stm Noting the latter was in the High Court as an appellate case, so binding on lower Courts? These news articles are both about the same party, whose case failed and have nothing whatsoever to do with my thread. Thanks
  14. If you drive up the hill (a long hill say ) you increase your revs to compensate for the reducing speed. Once you crest the hill you ease off the revs saving fuel and thereby slowing down. For example ========================= So going up the hill 3,000 rpm 70mph Cresting the hill 70mph Going down the hill 2,000 rpm 70mph ======================== Its only an example In answer to your question there is very small time lapse between cresting the hill and getting back to the the limit. Thats why the van was parked where he / she was because they knew about the hill, also facing a westerly direction. It would not work if they were facing the other way
  15. Aretnap Looks like it migfht be my mistake, on the 2 10th's rule, see below http://www.lawfirms.com/resources/traffic-tickets/speed-violations/how-speed-is-measured.htm This is for "Pacing" see first paragraph What about the rest of the problem cresting the hill etc. ?
  16. I have just received a NIP (Notice of Intended Prosecution) for doing 84mph on the M4 between J35 & J34 Now here is what actually happened; On Friday 4th July which was a bright sunny day I was traveling east along the M4 and as anybody who knows the area, at that particular stretch it starts to climb uphill, so to keep a steady 70ish (not 80ishor 90ish) I put my foot down to compensate for the hill. As I crested the hill my speed increased and I eased off the accelerator and took my sunglasses off. It was then that I noticed on the A4222 Cowbridge Road parked on a bridge going over the M4 a camera van, it’s the only bridge on that' stretch of motorway. Now, heres the thing, I knew that I had been doing 70ish climbing the hill so it goes without saying, on the cresting the hill, it wouldhave been late 70’s if it had climbed up to 84mph it can have only been for amatter of seconds. My understanding is the “Two Tenths Rule”, so using acalculator found here; http://www.calculatoredge.com/civil%20engg%20calculator/Speed%20Distance%20Time.htm 1,760 yards to the mile Divided by 10 = 176 Times by 2 = 352 352 yards (which is two tenths) at 84mph is 8 seconds Before you say “Fair Cop”, there is something that you should know, there were people passing me in the outside lane and it could have been the signal from their car that caught the speed activation.
  17. "Ganymede Or you print out the relevant CPR and take it with you" How will I know what CPR is likely to be coming up ? I can have a laptop and a printer back at the hotel, and have it printed out for the following day. I suppose I could ask the defendants solicitor if I can borrow his
  18. Thanks for that That advice is taken fully onboard I am now going to make a short witness statement referring part to Mitchell etc.
  19. 1. Where are you reading the CPR from? CPR 3.9 only has (1)(a) and (b) these days. Mitchell is binding and applies across the board to all civil litigation where Directions have either been missed or not complied with. http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03#3.9 Relief from sanctions 3.9 (1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need – (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. (2) An application for relief must be supported by evidence. Taken from the White Book 2013 Right having read your post and I have now read CPR 3.9 a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h and i. I can also adhere to (2) as will be seen in Court. So I will submit a double application in August 1 “Relief from sanctions” quoting one or more of the relevant a,b,c ,d,e, etc. 2 Re-submission of my disclosure number 2 , now signed. CPR 3.9 a, no long in force (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and b,no longer in force (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. c,d,e,f,g,h,i. no longer in force (2) An application for relief must be supported by evidence, which is still in the White Book 2013 Now I know I used The White Book 2013 as a reference, what I will do before I go to Court anything that am going to use I will check to see the justice website and my copy are the same if not I will print it out. The following is taken from the Mitchell Judgement and the salient points applicable to my claim are highlighted in bold and underlined The Court of Appeal has upheld a first instance decision granting relief from sanctions despite the non-compliance being neither trivial nor for a good reason. (Chartwell v Fergies [2014] EWCA Civ 506) Although this seems, at first glance, to be a departure from the tough post-Jackson case management regime, it remains in line with the principles set down in Mitchell. This decision shows that, although the two factors specified in CRP Part 3.9 will ‘usually’ prevail, there will be occasions where, given all the other circumstances involved, those factors carry less weight. While the Court of Appeal endorsed the Mitchell message, it emphasised that in considering applications for relief from sanctions, the courts should also not see their sole objective as ‘a display of judicial musculature’—the aim of CPR 3.9 was to achieve a just result. Practical implications The tougher regime implemented by the April 2013 Jackson Reforms will inevitably require fine-tuning as it evolves to ensure the (amended) overriding objective is met. Although mandatory time limits in court orders may be too draconian, the laxity of recent years needed to be addressed. The key, in this case, to the granting of relief was the accumulation of the circumstances, including: both parties were in default; the trial date would not need to be changed; there were no significant costs implications; and, crucially, a refusal would effectively have meant the end of the claim (note, however, this was not the sole reason for granting relief). Practitioners should therefore not see this as the courts’ resolve on Mitchell weakening. Rather, it may be seen as a logical progression of the CPR amendments with the overall message from the court remaining: parties and their solicitors must adhere to timetables and orders to avoid sanctions that will not be reversed lightly. Facts The claimant issued proceedings for commission allegedly owing following the sale of a property owned by the defendant. A court order was made that the parties should serve the statements of all witnesses of fact by simultaneous exchange on 22 November 2013. The order also indicated a trial window between March–May 2014. The parties could not agree on disclosure, as reflected in much correspondence between them. The claimant contended that it required further disclosure from the defendant in order to finalise its witness statements. The defendant refused on the basis that the additional information was irrelevant. As it turned out, neither party served witness statements on the ordered date (and neither sought an extension from court). Following further futile correspondence, the claimant issued an application for, amongst other things: 1. relief for the parties from sanction under CPR 3.9 for failure to exchange witness statements on time 2. alternatively that the parties have permission under CPR 32.10 to rely upon the evidence of those witnesses whose statements will have been served by a new proposed date Consequence of failure to serve witness statement or summary 32.10 If a witness statement or a witness summary for use at trial is not served in respect of an intended witness within the time specified by the court, then the witness may not be called to give oral evidence unless the court gives permission. The defendant opposed the applications. The first instance judge considered the breach was not trivial and nor was there good reason for it. However, he attached weight to the following facts in granting relief: 1. both parties were in default 2. the trial date could remain and there were no significant costs implications 3. if relief were not granted, it would certainly be fatal for the claim as the order related to all witness statements of fact (and CPR 32.10 provides that if there is breach of the time for serving a statement, the witness may not give oral evidence) The defendant was granted permission to appeal. Sanction under CPR 32.10 Davis LJ refused the appeal, finding the first instance judge had been entitled to decide the matter as he did. A clear sanction is set down for failure to serve a witness statement in CPR 32.10, namely that the witness may not be called to give oral evidence (unless the court gives permission). This would effectively deny the claimant the opportunity of proving its case. As the rules specify the sanction, there can be no argument that it is unjust or disproportionate. The sole question is therefore whether it should be disapplied on the facts of a particular case. The giving of permission by the court, notwithstanding the breach, is not open-ended but should be considered in the context of CPR 3.9. The application of CPR 3.9 (relief from sanction) The amended CPR 3.9 is one of the April 2013 Jackson Reforms designed to require greater observance by litigating parties (and their solicitors) of rules, practice directions and court orders. It is now the subject of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell, which is hugely important in adding flesh to the rule’s bones: 1. the court must consider whether the non-compliance was trivial 2. if it was not trivial, it must decide whether there was good reason 3. the promptness of any application for relief will be material 4. where non-compliance is not considered trivial, the expectation is that the factors mentioned in CPR 3.9(a) and CPR 3.9(b) will ‘usually trump other circumstances’ (and relief refused as a result) 5. the court ‘will not lightly interfere with a previous case management decision’ The cases of Durrant and Thevarajah also endorse this approach. However, CPR 3.9 requires the court to consider ‘all the circumstances’ of a case. Mitchell enshrines the paramount importance of the two specific considerations in that rule, but does not make them exclusive to other factors. The fact the claimant’s claim would effectively be brought to an end were relief not granted could not be taken, on its own, as reason enough to grant the relief. However, it was, nevertheless, a compelling point of too severe a consequence when weighed up with all the circumstances and the procedural history of the matter. This case is an unusual example of the two specific factors in CPR 3.9(a) and CPR 3.9(b) being trumped by all the other circumstances of the case. In relation to the Mitchell principles: even though the non-compliance was thought not to be trivial, nor to have good reason, the first instance judge was entitled to attribute importance to several other key factors which, combined, meant relief ought to be granted. On a more general note, the case of Mitchell should not be viewed by the courts as a blunt tool with which they solely flex their judicial muscle in considering, and refusing, applications under CPR 3.9. The courts are there to protect the interests of litigants and the wider interests of justice and the outcomes of these applications should reflect that. I am sorry for the "bold type face" and underling there is no facility to highlight
  20. Right having read your post and I have now read CPR 3.9 a,b,c,d,e,f,g,h and i. I can also adhere to (2) as will be seen in Court. So I will submit a double application in August 1 “Relief from sanctions” quoting one or more of the relevant a,b,c ,d,e, etc. 2 Re-submission of my disclosure number 2 , now signed. I think the Mitchell case only bears a little resemblance, to my claim and I really don’t want to muddy the waters
  21. To give you an idea of the what 1.465 kilograms weigh like Jodie Henry 28 weeks Twin 1 was 1.292 kgs and Twin 2 1.465 kgs. They were born at 32 weeks taken from https://www.facebook.com/AustralianMultipleBirthAssociation/posts/10151274643474983?stream_ref=5 Or Notebook: Toshiba Satellite U920t-100 (Satellite U920t Series) Processor: Intel Core i5 3317U Graphics Adapter: Intel HD Graphics 4000 Display: 12.5 inch, 16:9, 1366x768 pixels, glossy: yes Weight: 1.465kg Taken from http://www.notebookcheck.net/Toshiba-Satellite-U920t-100.85661.0.html
  • Create New...