Jump to content

mystery1

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    347
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

188 Excellent

About mystery1

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I know, the point wasn't really aimed at you M1
  2. In the sense that courts get it wrong sometimes. They even have a set up geared towards that. M1
  3. What is the point of an appeal court or the supreme court ? M1
  4. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2008/59.html The second matter is that, subject to my first comment, the expression "mentioned" is as general as could be. This is not to my mind intended to be a difficult test. The document in question does not have to be relied on, or referred to in any particular way or for any particular purpose, in order to be mentioned. Subject to Mr Lightman's second point, that the mention of a document within CPR 31.14 amounts to automatic and absolute waiver of privilege in it, which if correct would give to that rule a most important effect, I do not see why there should be need for a strict approach to a request for inspection of a specific document mentioned in one of the qualifying documents. The general ethos of the CPR is for a more cards on the table approach to litigation. If a party thinks it worthwhile to mention a document in his pleadings, witness statements or affidavits, I do not see why, subject as I say to the question of privilege, the court should put difficulties in the way of inspection. I look upon the mention of a document in pleadings etc as a form of disclosure. The document in question has not been disclosed by list, or at any rate not yet, but it has been disclosed by mention in what, for the purposes of litigation, is another important and formal category of documents. If so, then the party deploying that document by its mention should in principle be prepared to be required to permit its inspection, and the other party should be entitled to its inspection. What in such circumstances is the virtue of coyness? Backed up by http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/TCC/2009/1033.html M1
  5. I am guessing the solicitors for Mayhew did exactly this as i doubt she'd be in a position to pay. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/Misc/2012/14.html Perhaps you could find them http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17670803 M1
  6. Mbna, a dca and UK mail you say ? Wonder where i heard that before ! Oh yeah it was in a court case where they lost on this very point ! http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html On 3 October 2008 MBNA sent a default notice (TB4/1502). Paragraph 12 of Mrs Worden's statement dated 26 July 2010 reads as follows: Exhibited to this Witness Statement at "NW3" is a copy of the default notice which was served by MBNA on the Claimant ("the Default Notice"). The Default Notice was dated 3 October 2008 and, in accordance with MBNA's standard procedure was despatched to the Claimant on 3 October 2008 by way of UK Mail's Business Class service which guarantees delivery within two days of despatch, including Saturdays. It is not, and was not in October 2008, the standard practice of MBNA to send default notices to customers by second class post. There is no reason why the Default Notice sent to the Claimant in this case would have been sent by second class post contrary to MBNA's standard procedures. Investigation by the Claimant who knows about such things revealed that the notice was sent by second class post. Mrs Worden's own investigations revealed that it was "possible" that this was so. Her manner indicated that this was an elegant way of conceding the point as in my view she had to. Thus subsequent investigation contradicted a hitherto firmly held position of the Defendant that the notice had gone by a suitable post and was served in time. It was not. It was issued and sent by second class post on 3 October 2008 arriving (as was to be expected) on 9 October 2008 and was stated to expire on 21 October 2008. Given the date of delivery, the expiry date should have been 23 October 2008. The notice was bad. Naughty naughty. M1
  7. You brought up that you didn't receive a default notice and lost ? How did that happen ? Did you not take Brandon with you http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/1187.html or Harrison ? http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Mercantile/2011/B3.html Both these are binding on a lower court. M1
  8. De Minimis i'd think. You need a serious bank hating judge to let that fly. M1
  9. The signature that counts is yours. If you didn't ever sign you say so. If you did sign then forget about signatures. M1
  10. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13349239 If you decide to defend then you need as many decent bullets as you can muster. S78 is a valid and potentially case winning argument. If you wish to run the default notice points raised then there is no harm in running the s78 faults. Costs in the small claims should be limited. M1
  11. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html Para 234 (4) M1
  12. The recipient of the s78 must provide the original and variations not one or the other. http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2009/3417.html para 108. HFO v Robinson does seem somewhat similar to yours. M1
  13. The requirement for a statement is found in cca s78 so yes they need an "honest and accurate" copy of the agreement with any variations and must include a statement for your s78 request. CPR 31.14 does not have any prescribed form for a reply other than if they mention it, you can ask for it. No need for a statement with the agreement. If a s78 copy and a 31.14 copy are different then you wonder why they are different (has there been a variation or is one copy wrong?) It's always worth agreeing repayments if you are not convinced you'll win but if you have larger debts which may go legal it might be worth taking a hit in the small claims court to get used to it and perhaps even win but each individual has that choice to make for themselves. As for the default notices, if you are settling mention it for pressure but if fighting send a part 18 request to find out which one is the one they are relying on. M1
×
×
  • Create New...