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
    Your first paragraph, you may well feel that the stay became moot when the claim was struck out, what a load of cobblers, it just adds to the long list of misrepresentations that the dodgy solicitor used to rely on that dodgy judge. And you are wrong on your second paragraph, do you make the law up, as you go, or [removed].
  2. callum1999
    So you say...
  3. callum1999
    You keep quoting the PI that was time barred, but subject to extension in any event. I will just concentration on what the solicitor did not do, for near on two years, whilst making profit from allowing others to be at serious risk.
  4. callum1999
    Well if they are normal, what happened to the stay. Giving the circumstances and giving the way that the solicitor acted, and remembering the trust that a Charitable organisation gave him to remove what was a very serious risk to injury and to life, all this done with one thing on his mind, profit. The trust issue that he showed no concerns too, what so ever, exemplary damages as to discourage others from gaining profit whilst allowing a family to live in such conditions which would include the risk to an electric fire that Shelter made the solicitor aware of, but as long as he was making profit, that was all that mattered. All he had to do and was asked to do was to seek an injunction to remove a very serious risk, he decided to ignore that, ignore the safety of a number of people just to line his own pocket. He needs to count his blessings that no-one was seriously injured due to his negligence. Maybe you, him and his solicitors put up with the risks that we had to put up with add to the inconvenience and all the stress because of his non-actions, the value that you are questioning of the claim would not be in question..
  5. callum1999
    It did end up fast-track that was the direction as the value of claim and the proposal made by the Defendants on which the Master made the order would have been for less than 25k, thus making it fast track and not multi-track because of the value that the other-side and the Master had now alleged, but not proofed as being the value of the claim. The motivation to get it to a CC was based on the value of the claim, and to be able to do that, the multi-track would have had to have been replaced and end up, a fast track claim. How come the application to strike out and on the provision that would have also been considered by the Master were never adopted, a stay of proceedings before such application was to be made to strike out, or are we just adding another Order that was never fulfilled but would have been considered before the case was transferred and allocated under fast track. I do not recall any stay in proceedings, pre or post the other side making their application to strike the claim out. Or could this be yet another misrepresentation to get the case to the Court and to the judge that the other-side were so desperate to consider their unfounded and mis-directed ploy to get the judge of their choose, how convenient was that.
  6. callum1999
    By this Thursday HB, but there is no logical point in appealing any previous judgement to the same court or judge who should not have made judgement in the first instance it would again be a waste of time and costs for the wrong court to consider what are now, strong grounds to appeal.
  7. callum1999
    The Defendants proposed directions include a stay to enable the application for strike out to be heard. The information below will only be applicable should the application for strike out be unsuccessful. The claim has provisionally allocated to multi-track. The Defendant does not consider that the Claimants claim is worth £25,000 or that a trial of the claim will take longer than one day. Very interesting reading, so it would now appear that the Defendants not only failed to seek a stay before the case was thrown out, the fast -track application would only be applied for, in the event that the strike out was unsuccessful. So how did it end up fast-track and how did end up in the local CC??
  8. callum1999
    So all the evidence and allegations and those opinionated by the other-side solicitor, why was that considered?
  9. callum1999
    No the Defendants application was not made appropriately and within the "rules of the court" the case, the circumstances and the value of the claim 25k+, was not suitable for the track they were requesting. You and i know, such is the complex of cases for professional negligence would not be considered under the fast track procedure, this claim was no different. Whilst the Court has the powers under case management to transfer a claim, that is not to say that it is the right decision, the bottom line is fundamentally clear, the case could and should never have been decided because the other-side alleged that in their opinion the case was not worth more than 25k so therefore the case not only be transferred but also the track previously allocated by a Master was also incorrect, yea ok.
  10. callum1999
    Yes it was, the evidence from my legal team and the reasons why they were negligent and willing to act on my behalf were detailed and giving to the solicitor whilst they were representing me. They and in detail pointed out why the solicitor was negligent on a number of occasions, so to claim such evidence that would undermined not only the other-side case, but also any applications to strike a claim out, are not as you have deemed inadmissible in evidence, it should have been considered as evidence, as the compliance and the procedure needed for the evidence to be considered was followed correctly. The DJ had no legal right to refuse evidence opposing an application that he should never have been near, in the first place. He was there to consider the evidence, not consider what evidence he felt was relevent. Its all on tape.
  11. callum1999
    Whilst the procedures to strike out a PoC are the same, they need to be adopted and within the rules of the Court, this was not a fast track claim that was suitable for the Court requested on the grounds that the other-side had adjudged were suited (for them) to consider such application.. My Particulars of claim and the very fact that on considering the pleadings Master / assigned the case multi-track (a) will show there was a cause of action for professional negligence which would (b) clearly show no grounds to strike out. Its irrelevant now anyway, the wrong court and wrong judge considered and made that judgement to throw the case out, it was flawed and i will be claiming the legal costs because the other-side and in their haste made the application at that material time to the wrong Court and judge. Is it no wonder they did not want the correct court to consider THEIR APPLICATION (The High Court) for the reasons giving, and add to that the Orders and evidence being ignored, they would not have got away with that had the right court and level of judge been correctly asked to adjudge the case, claim and any applications, which and by now we all know, was not the case.
  12. callum1999
    Giving that my previous solicitors had complied with the pre-action protocol procedures which resulted in proceedings being issued, as they were adamant the solicitor had acted negligently, to dismiss any involvement as being irrelevant, is complete tosh. And pushing to one side what Shelter had to say, is again nonsense, so them telling the solicitor to seek a court injunction and the solicitors agreeing, as to take the claim on in the first instance on those provision but failing to act, again, demonstrated blatant negligence. You cannot cherry pick parts of the evidence to suit you case, that is, unless you get some crooked eyed judge to give you a helping hand..
  13. callum1999
    The Claim was struck out on the fast track procedure, so (a) its not only the choice of venue, and (b) any decision to strike out the claim n the grounds, circumstances and value of the claim should not have been adjudge by a District Judge in a County Court, as was the case. And had it remained in the High Court it would have most certainly made a difference to the strike out, evidence and applications made to the County Court would not have been allowed to be ignored.
  14. callum1999
    So the most defining point and one on which an appeal could be relied upon, is that the case should have remained within the High Court and not transferred to the County Court. There are now a number of factors that would support this. The Defendants had no compelling evidence that (a) could show the value of the claim was suitable for fast track which was the reason for transfer, to the County Court. What a load of nonsense, the Master and the High Court had already and on the balance of claim/defence bracketed the case under multi-track, so the other-side and their solicitor have dismissed such order to get it to fact track, and without one shred of evidence to suggest the claim was suitable for fast-track. The case should have stayed where the claim was subsequently and correctly issued, and the excuse to (a) rely on the fast track, (b) in order for the local county court to deal with, which was to get the claim thrown out.
  15. callum1999
    No we wont forget about the Court that it was heard in, and lets not forget, any decision and any powers that the Court have, can only be imposed on facts and evidence received, the other-side misrepresented themselves and their client by wrongfully alleging that a previous order had been breached by me, failing to agree directions, another lie and one that would have been considered before any case management powers could have been imposed, which again are defining factors which will not be relevant, the case should not have been moved, ABUSE OF PROCESS.
  16. callum1999
    I think you will find that a Judge has an obligation and a statutory duty to consider all the evidence. The other-side and there legal team, were allowed to represent and present their case, or have they such supremacy and grace to be so different. I don't think so, they've no more rights than my previous legal team have, in proving a case.
  17. callum1999
    So a claim that had previously been allocated by the Master for multi track, was transferred to the County Court on the provisions that the other-side valued the claim for a figure that could be determined under the fast track procedure, because the local county court can deal with it. How have they, the other-side proofed the value of the claim, on pure denial or presented evidence that would dismiss any previous Order that categorised the claim for a value that could not be determined under the track giving by Master ?., which was thrown out under the fast track procedure and by a judge who as i see it, acted on those provision and the value alleged but not proven as to be in a position in any event, to rule on the case because of the value and because of the nature of claim, that should have been considered by the appropriate Court and Judge that would be capable and have the authority as to dismiss a claim on what was a continued fabrication of facts that have run parallel with the Orders sought and granted, that have been achieved on the very same principle that has been adopted by those who see this as normal, wrong..
  18. callum1999
    So in effect, we now have the solicitor who has been alleged as being negligent, deciding not only on the value of the claim against him but also the relevent track and court that should determined the claim against him..
  19. callum1999
    When i requested the reasons why the claim would be suitable for fast track and moved jurisdiction from High Court to County Court the email response from those representing the solicitor were: Our client considers the value of the claim and length of time required for the claim to be tried makes it suitable for the fast track as oppossed to the multi track. If the claim is transferred to the fast track, it can be dealt with at Local County Court is due to it being geographically closest to both parties place of residence.
  20. callum1999
    Defendants draft order for directions 1. Transfer 1.1 The Claim be transfered to ? County Court 2 Allocation 2.1 The Claim be allocated to FAST TRACK 3 Hearing of application to strike out 3.1 A Hearing be listed for the first available after 18th July 2016 to here the Defendants application to strike out the Claimants claim. 3.
  21. callum1999
    Yes HB, and thanks.
  22. callum1999
    Here is the probable reason why the Master agreed to the other-sides proposals, hence why the case was moved The other-side gave a misrepresentation to Master ? that the Claimant had declined any proposed directions pursuant to the Order made on the 25th May 2016, made by Master ?, on the 23rd June 2016.. On the 16th June 2016 the Claimant and before the misrepresentation made to the Master attempted to agree with the other-side, the directions which would have included the venue. The other-side said that they would take instructions from their client, never heard anything after that,i informed the Court, but more importantly the fact that the other-side yet again fabricated an event, by misleading the Master and the assigned Court that i had "declined" any agreement to proposed directions, is yet another sneaky manoeuvre by the other-side to achieve another un-warranted Order. And the Court being made aware of this misrepresentation, ignored, which again supports to the abuse of process and any attempt to secure the ends of justice.
  23. callum1999
    Hi HB I am going to ask a number of question, and i would be obliged if proven, the grounds of appeal could be viable. I would appreciate help from anyone, but not from BazzaS, who i would like to thank for his input, even though most of it has not been positive nor constructive, but he or she has the right to an opinion, but i do not think he can now add much to this thread. My first question is this, Why did the Master and on considering both proposals for directions decide an agree with the other parties proposed directions. Should a reason or reasons been giving to accept one parties proposals but not the other parties proposals. Those directions that the Master relied upon, effectively move the case from the High Court to County Court. Should matters have stayed where proceedings were issued, or was the other-side proposal to move based on both parties coming from the same City, a viable reason to transfer?
  24. callum1999
    lol, your knuckles and that poor keyboard of yours, must be tired. Just to refresh your memory [removed], stop banging on about any defence, fabrication and telling porkies to the Court and a judge, (cougth) can happen and in this case, has happened after any sub-standard defence has been produced. You seem to be obsessed with the other-side defence, that's all it was, a denial, which a bigger Court and a more respectect judge will see straight through. Let us know when you can re-write the history of the contract and its law without the basic's being in place, funding, thoughts>>>
  25. callum1999
    So if the Claimant entered this as an exhibit on which to oppose his claim being struck out, and the judge says he is not interested in that evidence, even though that evidence comes from a previous solicitor/barrister representing the Claimant, that would show grounds for claim; is the (a) an unlawful act (b) abuse of power © abuse of equality in law (d) an abuse of court process. A yes or no to a,b,c or d would suffice the question, thanks in advance

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...