Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

callum1999

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    497

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Everything posted by callum1999

  1. callum1999
    Hi Benny1973, Based on what you have stated, sounds to me like they are just using the Courts as a scare tactic which has backfired since the defence was made. Now, and based on the defence, they want to change the pleadings, but this makes no difference. If it was me and my parents were adamant to take it all the way to court, which i totally agree with, give them notice and the court notice that you will be counter claiming for breach of contract. Tell them you will be claiming legal costs, in any event on the litigant in person basis and tell them that you are also considering making application for a wasted costs, which will be the case, based on what you say, watch them move:-D.
  2. callum1999
    The application and subsequent judgement was achieved, without consideration for any CPR that me the Claimant could rely upon, which would have (a) stopped the strike out hearing (b) judgement made as a result of that hearing © and evidence that would undermined a strike out application, CPR 32.18
  3. callum1999
    So the defendants were aware of my application to to have their order made on the courts own initiative set-aside, add to that, their continued denial as to produce evidence, which any unrepresented party would have legal entitlement too, but continued to proceed.
  4. callum1999
    The other-side were made aware of my application, as were the courts, email correspondence shows this, as well.
  5. callum1999
    As soon as the CT made the order that allowed the other-side their application, to grant the other-side the strike out application, i made the appropriate order (within 7days) to have the CT order set-aside. It would also appear the rules on striking out a claim when one party is unrepresented, the rules on evidence, remember the Notice to Admit Facts, should have in any event been considered CPR 3.1 and the relevant paragraphs covers this.
  6. callum1999
    Any advice on the application to set-aside the hearing that ultimately leading to the case being struck out would be appreciated..... Why was another application ignored by the Court?
  7. callum1999
    Yes i applied for CMH, the CT denied this as well, stating the Defendants application to strike out had been listed.
  8. callum1999
    On the 25th July 2016 made application for order allowing strike out hearing granted by CT to defendants to be set-aside, again, ignored by the courts, another application and within the compliance of the rules that have been adopted, but evidently ignored by the defendant, but more importantly by the court.
  9. callum1999
    Will do..
  10. callum1999
    Fully complied with by the Claimant, but as with all other applications, the Court were only prepared to grant one, the Defendants application to strike out, would have assumed that the Courts and the Judges are obliged as to secure the ends of justice, just considering and thereafter adjudging and throwing the other parties case out on those facts, could be deemed an abuse of process which both parties, and not just one party,! were allowed to implement.
  11. callum1999
    ORDER RECEIVED FROM HIGH COURT re Upon Directions Questionnaires being received by parties and the Court file being referred to Master ? QC IT IS ORDERED THAT: 1) The claim is to be transferred to the County Court sitting in ?(hometown) for case management and if necessary, trial 2) The Claimant is within 28 days to apply to the County Court in ?9hometown) of a case management hearing. 3) Permission to apply - such application is to be made to the County Court 11th July 2016
  12. callum1999
    You are funny, i will give you that:-D:-D
  13. callum1999
    Of course it was ignored, if it was not ignored, tut tut, or was the Master QC wrong as to suggest the claim should be multi-track, more to the point was i wrong to advocate what was being ordered by the Master QC. who was wrong ? me, the High Court Judge, or you, you decide:lol:
  14. callum1999
    No lets deal with the Claimant's submission. It was ignored, so if the Master was minded to put the case multi-track, why was my submission so wrong, was the Master QC so wrong to bracket the case under those proceedings, or is it yet another case of what you say goes, thoughts?
  15. callum1999
    CLAIMANTS DRAFT ORDER FOR DIRECTIONS IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. ALLOCATION 1.1 THE CLAIM BE ALLOCATED TO MULTI-TRACK 2. COURT ASSIGNED TO DEAL WITH CASE 2.1 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred 3 NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS 3.1 THE DEFENDANTS DO PROVIDE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE ORDER THE NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS, AS SERVED BY THE CLAIMANT UNDER CPR 32.18 DATED 3RD JUNE 2016 4 HEARING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE 4.1 A HEARING BE LISTED OR UNDER THE COURTS OWN INITIATIVE AS TO STRIKE OUT THE DEFENCE, PURSUANT TO THE DEFENDANTS COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE DIRECTIONS WITH THE CLAIMANTS NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS, OF WHICH THE CLAIMANT FEELS ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN ANY EVENT. SINGED AND DATED BY CLAIMANT / 22ND JUNE 2016. That was what i sent to the High Court but never heard anything back, i will post the Defendants proposed direction up in a bit.
  16. callum1999
    OK i will put both proposed directions up, please give me an hour. There is a witness statement also in support of the directions that were also sent. Would it be easier for me to email all of this over???
  17. callum1999
    What are you going on about arguing submission, they were no better than me, if the judge wants to bury his head in the sand when told, a five year old would be capable of winning that application, representing them. Its no mean achievement for a lemon being paid god knows, how much per hour when the judge and the court are doing the work for him, as was the case yesterday. If you honestly believe that the order gained yesterday was based on evidence or how that evidence was presented, you are on a different planet my friend, and deep down you know how that decision was made, and it had nothing to do with what you are trying to preach, fact.
  18. callum1999
    I did SV, I got a solicitor and a barrister to go after the Council, but the terms of the agreement and the fact that the solicitor failed to reserve that right, ultimately let the Council off the hook, so to speak. So the solicitor, not me, said that because of the solicitors actions i have lost any entitlement to claim from the Council, and pointed the finger at my previous solicitor as that reason (professional negligence) It is not as if i have gone charging in without cause to suspect that solicitor acted negligently, both a solicitor and barrister and after considering the evidence were both adamant, that was the case. Everyone else who have not had the same benefit to look at the evidence are right, but me and a solicitor and a barrister who have had the benefit of all the facts are all WRONG, work it out mate.
  19. callum1999
    But they were instructed to do that, but they decided to deny that, like the council did with the disrepair for a number of years. If they had admitted what they had done from the start, all the other matters including alleging fraud would not have surfaced. They dug their heels in, and so have i. They have had ample opportunity to show where the funding came from to represent me, if that funding was never there for a contract, which now seems to be the case, they should not have represented me because there was no motivation or desire to represent me on a standard a client would expect from a solicitor, and the most probable reason why the instructions were ignored. They were entrusted to look after me and my family by Shelter, they acted the complete opposite, but were paid handsomely to do the complete opposite. If if is ok for a solicitor or any other profession without a legitimate contract as to protect both parties, and this is accepted as being par for the course, those who accept this, have every right to accept this, but those who don't be criticised if they have a right to object, that is all i am doing.
  20. callum1999
    Who is claiming victory, i have not suffered a loss at all, quite the reverse. The other-side have now played all their cards, and took all those risks, this time, in court. Again, you have mis-read, the barrister went the colours of the rainbow when he knew the application was to be considered, and not after it was consider, do keep up.
  21. callum1999
    Let me ask you a question, requesting a case being moved because the two parties share the same post-code, i would call that a lottery, and most certainly not in the interest of justice. Why should have stayed in the High Court, because it was a complex case where all the evidence should have been considered, add to that fraud, the case was to big for that judge yday, he was out of his depth, and technically conducted a full trial based on evidence only he considered relevant, one side. I would have thought if a judge suspected one party to be in the slightest bit swayed to tell the court a pack of lies, making sure there contract was in order would have been top of his list, this one was told there was no proof of funding, made no difference, his mind was made up, anotherone who abused that little bit of power that they strive half their lifes trying to get.
  22. callum1999
    So what you are saying is that a Master would never consider a case for professional negligence, they just allocate the case. He did, multi track, after considering the merits of the case. In fact, he could have thrown the claim out, but evidently saw a different case as to the district judge, yday, no suprises there.
  23. callum1999
    The reason and the pleading used to shift the case, was based on where both parties live, very odd.
  24. callum1999
    And you most certainly are nowhere near that level either, don't give up the day job.??? The fact that that court/judge dismissed my application for the other-side to proof the contract just adds to all the evidence now stacking up, their barristers face when the order was to be considered, he went the colours of the rainbow.
  25. callum1999
    OK thanks for that,, appreciated. The same High Court judge, and after considering my POC and the defence, stated that the case was suitable for multi-track. What is striking is that a Master of the High Court having considered the POC and the defence clearly saw a different case to by far a less qualified judge who knew better.

Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...