Jump to content

SADIE DE RUE

Banned
  • Content Count

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About SADIE DE RUE

  • Rank
    Banned
  1. I posted a link to those two authorities because the judgments contain an abundance of information on the rule of law as to infringement of copyright and monopolization. There was no intention on my part to be unhelpful or to cause any confusion to anyone. As to any time limit set by the solicitors for you to respond by, you are of course, as you say, under no obligation to meet this. If the other side does commence with proceedings then you must comply with any time limits set by the court. Unfortunately, I have not been able to read the attachments as they are not PDF. Is it p
  2. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1997/19.html Kaisha v. Green Cartridge Company (Hong Kong) Limited (Hong Kong) [1997] UKPC 19 This is another key authority that you might like to read as it may help you with this case. Sadie
  3. http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1986/7.html British Leyland Motor Corp & Ors v Armstrong Patents Company Ltd & Ors [1986] UKHL 7 Click on the above link and have a read of this case because it is relevant to any claim against you alleging infringement of copyright, and based on the matters you have posted here about the claim you are being threatened with, it may be the case that you have grounds to raise a Defence against the copyright infringement allegation which is referred to in the legal profession as a “British Leyland Defence”. If the other side do issue proc
  4. Well I cannot predict what the judge will decide, but what I can say is that the Claimant’s non-compliance with the order is sufficient grounds to justify strike out of his claim and the Court of Appeal in Mitchell MP affirms this. In the event of the claim being struck out on these grounds it will not mean that the matter is over forever, however, if the Claimant issues another claim on precisely the same issues, he may need permission of the court to do so. Sadie
  5. Rule 6.21 Form 6.19 Notice by Debtor of Intention to Oppose Bankruptcy Petition (TITLE) (a) Insert name Take note that I (a) intend to oppose the application to make a bankruptcy order on the following grounds:– 1. The sum stated in the Petition is wholly factually incorrect. The Debtor is not liable for the same. 2. The statutory Demand relied on by the Petitioner in these proceedings does not contain factual information as to any sum that may be owed to him be the Debtor. 3. The Petitioner is aware that the Debtor contested the sum demanded before service of the Statutor
  6. The Court of Appeal Handed Down Judgment in Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 (27 November 2013) has affirmed that a party’s failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or order will no longer be tolerated, therefore, you should request strike out of claim for non-compliance with court order and refer the lower court judge to this authority which all lower courts are bound by. In the Mitchell MP case, Mitchell’s representatives failed to comply with a CPR rule on the filing of costs budgets, the Appeal court said this failure meant Mitchell was not entitle
  7. http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/504.html This recent Court of Appeal authority - Figurasin & Anor v Central Capital Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 504, offers very good news for consumers and can be relied on as regards mis-selling of ppi by the creditors. Although consumers need to be aware that each case turns on its merits You will need to review your own paperwork in respect of the finance advanced by the creditor in order to determine if the illustration for the loan makes any reference to ppi on it and whether the ppi is stated as optional. It is now common knowledg
  8. Hello again Toots You do not need to name your creditor(s) as excluded persons under the trust, because the trust falls outside of your Estate and the legal rights of the beneficiaries thereunder cannot be infringed by any means. In my opinion, there is no requirement for you to make any changes to the trust. Sadie
  9. Creditor cannot force your hand to amend the trust, firstly because the trust falls outside of your Estate and secondly the powers confered under the trust to make any amendments are confered on trustees, thirdly the irreducible core concept of the trust cannot be interfered with/violated by your creditor. Sadie
  10. Hello Toots According to Hayton & Mitchell: Commentary and Cases on the Law of Trusts and Equitable Remedies Thirteenth Edition, the interests of the beneficiaries are paramount and the irreducible core content of the trust concept consists of a duty of the trustee to act for the beneficiaries’ interest, without this, a trust would not exist at all. Ownership of trust property is vested in the trustees (or their nominees, although the trustees technically then own an interest in the property owned by the nominees), to be managed and dealt with wholly for the benefit of the benefi
  11. A bare trust is one where the person who benefits from it (referred to as the beneficiary) has an immediate and absolute right to the assets that are transferred to the trust and any income generated by them. The assets transferred into a bare trust are known as “trust property” or the “trust fund”. The trust fund is held in the name of the trustee, who may (but doesn’t have to) be the person who sets the bare trust up. Usually, there are two trustees involved; often the person setting up the trust and one other. A person setting up a bare trust can be certain that the assets they
  12. if insurance company try to talk you out of it or mess you around by delay tactics, simply terminate revocable trust and set up new irrevocable trust for your children elsewhere. sadie
  13. Contact the insurance company and inform them of your wish to change the trust to an irrevocable trust and request they send you the necessary paperwork/forms without delay in order to make this alteration. Sadie
  14. The key difference between a revocable trust and an irrevocable trust is that an irrevocable trust cannot be modified or terminated without permission of the beneficiary, whereas, a revocable trust can be modified or terminated by the settlor. Once the grantor transfers the assets into the irrevocable trust, he or she removes all rights of ownership to the trust and assets, therefore, creditors cannot liquidate assets held in irrevocable trust as they are not legally owned by debtor. You have the power and entitlement to alter the revocable trust, so simply change it to an irrevocab
  15. In relation to the Claimant filing & serving a 2nd & late WS, you are entitled to object to this type of tactic being used by him so late in the day and especially if the court order directed that WSs be exchanged simultaneously and request that this new late WS be disallowed as he must obtain permission from the court (see last para below). See commentary below on this point of law reproduced from:- The White book vol.1 (in particular to your case posted here see para.2 & last para) Amplification of evidence (r.32.5(3) and (4)) 32.5.2 Former RSC Ord.38 r.2
×
×
  • Create New...