Jump to content

wannabedebtfreesoon

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    2,245
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

wannabedebtfreesoon last won the day on October 8 2010

wannabedebtfreesoon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

567 Excellent

1 Follower

About wannabedebtfreesoon

  • Rank
    Classic Account Holder

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I think you may be referring to Justice Tuckey's judgment in Wilson v Hurstanger you can find that HERE although I would add that things are a helluva lot more complicated than that these days. There is a conflicting judgment which is often relied upon by creditors in the case of Harrison v Black Horse although this has now been granted permission to appeal in the Supreme Court. It appears there are many cases based on secret commission, PPI and other similar issues where there have been applications made for a stay of proceedings pending the decision of the Supreme Court in this case. T
  2. Thank you for your patience, I appreciate your understanding that there have been certain things I am unable to speak about publicly. As it goes, there are still things I am unable to say but I will do what I can to try to explain what has happened. There was a draft judgment but I am entirely unable to say anything about that at all, those there them are the rules I'm afraid Judgment was due to be formally handed down today but it hasn't been. Instead I made an application for a stay of proceedings pending the decision of the Supreme Court in the Harrison case. My application was
  3. Now there's a question! I accepted the complaint be dealt with via local resolution but I always made it clear that once the court proceedings were over I'd be back to make a claim against the police too for their part in it. I've often thought during my darkest hours that I wanted nothing more than to see the back of all this, but I woke up this morning and realised that this has actually only just begun... There's much that remains unfinished and unsaid. Every day something else winds me up even more about the whole thing I forgot to mention what welcome's closing ar
  4. Thank you G! You really know how to make a girl feel special It's not over yet but at least I can hold my head up eh? x
  5. Sorry I haven't had time to read your thread properly yet but I just really needed to make that point as a matter of urgency!
  6. Do not agree to Multi-track!!! There are serious costs implications involved in this, proceed with extreme caution!! Has the claim already been allocated?? Have there been any other applications to have the track changed if so??
  7. You'd have been so proud, even the clerk approached me after the hearing and commended me on the fluency of my arguments She tried to convince me to take up law but I told her that I was not into playing dirty tricks so I wouldn't be joining up! She was really lovely and said she thought I was fantastic and had acted as good as any barrister she had ever seen. It really made my day, it was so kind of her to take the time to say those things and it just goes to show that we can achieve anything we set our minds and hearts to. I hadn't planned on acting like a barrister, I just wanted t
  8. Good morning NU stands for Norwich Union, this is who welcome allege underwrote all the policies. Yes the costs issue is something they will always try to use as a frightener. Although it still is something you need to be aware of, if it goes against you will be responsible for their costs. It's worth bearing in mind though that there is a cap on costs for fast track trials too depending on the value of your claim, you do need to familiarise yourself with this. From what I remember it is contained within Part 46 of the CPR. There's always a get out clause with any of it that the ju
  9. Wow that post turned out to be considerably longer than I expected! Forgive me, I slept soundly for the first time in 3 weeks
  10. Yes the Hurstanger case was ruled on the fact that they didn't disclose the amount. The same can be said for Yates and Harrison, in those cases the borrower was made aware via various documents and booklets. Hurstanger was ruled on the fact that it was not a TRUE secret commission case. My case with welcome was so much of secret commission case that it was even a bloody secret from welcome! This is what distinguishes from all the other cases, as much as the other side refused to accept that. The judge even specifically asked me when I found about it, and I can categorically state that it was n
  11. It's hard, really, really hard! There's so much more to a court room than just knowing you're right. There's a whole new language to learn and a certain way of behaving. There's a procedure and routine which you also have to learn, so as well as knowing your case inside out and back to front you need to be able to back it up fully with the law and legal authority and learn everything else as well. Bear in mind barristers go to school for a lot of years to learn all of this stuff! Confidence does play a big part in it but take care, there is a very
  12. When all is said and done, the burden of proof rests with the creditor. When a debtor alleges unfairness in a relationship it is for the creditor to prove otherwise. Have they done enough to prove that everything was fair?? Trespass - fair? Contravention of Section 92 - fair? Breach of Statutory Duty - fair? Fraud, bribery and secret commission - fair??? The judge double checked that they accepted that the burden rested with them, just before she went off to consider her judgment
  13. It was incredibly annoying at times, having to listen to the other side arguing against something they had previously admitted! Apparently they can get away with what they said previously if they just say; notwithstanding to what has been said before... They spent an incredible amount of time arguing that there was no agency relationship between me and the broker and so there was no breach of fiduciary duty, if anything the agency relationship was between them and the broker. I found that to be entirely ludicrous as they stated in their defence that "at all material times the broker was
  14. They argued Harrison, I argued Hurstanger. They forgot to mention that the Harrison's had been granted permission to appeal at the Supreme Court, good job I was there to remind them eh??! The thing that perhaps gets overlooked in this situation is that Hurstanger wasn't won on secret commission. In fact it was found that the commission was NOT a secret. This case however is a true case of secret commission and there was absolutely no disclosure at all. There were always 2 separate arguments in Hurstanger, one based on fiduciary duty and one based on fairness. I argued, and always d
  15. Well I suppose I can! There's nothing I need to hide away from prying eyes now, I've already said it to their faces
×
×
  • Create New...