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
    Just looking at the Draft Order for directions, which was agreed by the High Court, as proposed by the Defendants, for a less senior Court/Judge to consider, the claim. Can someone please explain why my propose directions were not considered?, but the Defendants were accepted.
  2. callum1999
    It was ruled on, and dismissed, the reason-s, because of the reasons giving to strike out. This however, after i politely reminded the judge that he was going to deal with my application, which i reminded him that he said he would deal with the application, which he duly obliged and gave reasons for dismissing. So that now takes it up to four applications that i have made which have either been ignored or dismissed, a quite remarkable achievement when you consider the courts jumped through hoops to accommodate the other-sides one application, and just like magic, its successful........
  3. callum1999
    But having two claims struck and base on how or how they were achieved, one for not receiving notification, the other based on a perversion of facts, if after taking on board both facts, it has nothing to do not have any strength as to litigate a case, quite the reverse, unless you want me to be held accountable for the actions of others. The facts were there, and will always be there for me to have a jolly good chance of winning, if the solicitors and the courts want to scatter to conceal that evidence, as i have correctly pointed out, yday hearing and the judgement had already been made, before i entered that court, it was fairly obvious, we all knew that, including you.
  4. callum1999
    Stop putting yourself down Barry:-D:-D:-D Your areas of skill, knowledge and expertise, far outweigh any negatives that you have experienced in life.
  5. callum1999
    Oh i think you find they will be obliged to provide documents, maybe not to me, but still that is not entirely correct at this stage such doctored, i mean document would now be subject to a criminal prosecution, and any compliance with PACE, would be merely, a standard procedure giving the seriousness of offences, which as of yesterday would include perverting the course of justice, add to that fraud and add defrauding the public, the CPR that you quote are now irrelevant, in any event. When did i report my solicitor and his associates for perverting the course of justice???? not the same accusation at all. As for my case, still very much alive and kicking, what makes you think its dead... far from.
  6. callum1999
    With the greatest respect, i think you have got your Callum and BazzS mixed up in your post, it should read the complete reverse, just an observation...
  7. callum1999
    Brilliant, just a quick scout through the morning posts, and all the congratulating back slapping and how right they were, is comedy gold, its certainly made my day. WARNING!!!!! If anyone stumbles across or knows the whereabouts of of the the invisible contract that i recently had with my solicitor, do not approach or try to restrain it, the chances are you have just have experience one of god's miracles. On a serious note, if you do discover, please take it to your nearest police station:-D:-D:-D
  8. callum1999
    Yes to the first paragraph No to the second paragraph, however post hearing yday, such obligation cannot and will not be protected under mere Civil law, lets move onto the next level, CRIMINAL LAW.
  9. callum1999
    The claim was struck out based on evidence, which has now been disclosed and pleaded, that evidence was false, in particular the funding needed for a legitimate contract that has now been pleaded, to be in place, evidently, that was not the case. As for the costs, just how were they incurred, or Ordered, but for PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, they could not have possibly been incurred....... Over to you BazzaS, oops, i mean GM, LOL.
  10. callum1999
    Just as well i got the application in before the claim was struck out, a master stroke:lol: Icing on the cake. Todays case and the pleadings relied upon to secure a judgement, nothing under the Civil Procedures Rules nor any obligation owed (your quote) as to provide, will have any influence on the fact that todays hearing, added with the cheeky order obtained this morning, now proves beyond any reasonable doubt that in order to secure the case that has now "been struck out" has and was based on the solicitor, his solicitor and a number of other people (solicitor for the council) PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, or in a nutshell, telling porkies about the funding that initiated the contract, that never was. Hook line and sinker, and with minimal bate, laid, now quote what CPR covers the above, not just an abuse of process, a complete abuse of natural justice, criminals:sad:, thoughts:shock::roll:
  11. callum1999
    Funny how none of this about verbally asking for an appeal and requesting the transcript was relayed before the hearing by the experts on here, so i think i will pass on BazzasS idea as to formulate an appeal, its already in process. Still no sign of the contract:wink:,
  12. callum1999
    And on what grounds? I would have assumed that it would have been in the interest of justice, for such evidence to be proofed, i dont know.
  13. callum1999
    Nah, he wouldn't say that now, would he But the chance to prove that, has now gone, and on application. He concluded, that they had not fabricated the contract, a quite remarkable achievement without wanting or allowing the Court to proof what is central to any solicitor/client dispute. The fuuny thing is, that the solicitors offices and my file are a stonesthrow from the Court, i was willing to pop over there to ask for proof of the retainer, the other-side and the judge were not so eager for this simple objective, to be carried out, it would have only taking ten minutes, if that. v odd
  14. callum1999
    The other-side argued and relied on previous cases that have been struck out on the same allegations. But as i pointed out, those cases and those solicitors would have had a legitimate contract in place.
  15. callum1999
    The judge knew i was right with there being no legitimate contract as to represent me. But he has made his decision to turn a blind eye to the most obvious. We march on
  16. callum1999
    No Yes District 9k, 5k to be paid in 14 days. Argued and managed to get CPR 31.12 application, dismissed.
  17. callum1999
    Claim struck out, now that is a surprise, NOT:-D Application for other-side to provide retainer, refused. Whitewash, and as predictable as day following night.
  18. callum1999
    But if that document could prove once the hearing KO, i am alleging a criminal offence, as the other-side and in their application today, have indicated that there was a legitimate contract for their client to represent me, the evidence that i have obtained because they did not want to show this, more likely, than not, this was not the case and there was no retainer. Rule 31.12 i would assume Is there any other CPR when one party suspects the other has and is perverting the course of justice?
  19. callum1999
    On what form number would the application have to be pleaded on??
  20. callum1999
    The Document is relevant to the case and the other-side are refusing to provide CPR 31.15, its proof that (A) that in any event, they had a retainer to act negligently, or not act negligently, to the PoFC, (B) And that retainer could be relied upon in any defence, as any defence would need a contract that would have been in place, in order to defend.
  21. callum1999
    Thanks GM, appreciated.
  22. callum1999
    Thanks, and appreciated.
  23. callum1999
    Is there a CPR on which to request that the Court order one side to compel the solicitor to provide the retainer within a stipulated time.
  24. callum1999
    Avoiding and giving logical answers to how the other-side could even crawl through a court door tomorrow, was and still is, a giveaway:!: I've nothing against solicitors, only those who defend, the undefendable, its a nasty habit.
  25. callum1999
    Quite simply, An abuse of process, grounds, and i might add grounds under HRA 1998, Article 6. So there are two avenues, not one, as you are assuming (again).

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...