Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • 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
  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
  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
  • Create New...