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
    No-ones ranting, not producing but producing a statement which has now been used to secure a judgement claiming funding was initially in place, when it was not in order to (a) legally represent (b) to validate a legitimate contract, is contempt of court, if that was not entirely true. As for giving you on the demands of "here and now" as to prove, lol, brilliant. As for rational and legal argument, please do tell how a solicitor, could possibly legally represent a client without the funding to initiate such agreement, give me the answers, as you seem to have an answer for everything, but what is relevent, you go missing under that rock, any thoughts, or can we expect the same diverted dribble that follows the smashing the hell out of that poor keyboard of yours. You are all ifs, buts and maybe's, without substance, fact..
  2. callum1999
    Civil Procedure Rule 32.14, and the appropriate Court, on this occasion will consider the application as the solicitor has now relied on the evidence and in particular, the funding of the case, which based on the evidence that i have now in my possession would suggest not only the solicitor is now in contempt of court, for not only misleading but also failing when asked to proof a contract, which is still the case, today.
  3. callum1999
    It has nothing to do with planning, what has happened has now happened. It is now fundamentally clear any orders, any evidence and the needed procedures on which i could have relied upon to not only undermined the other-sides case and at the same time prove my case have all been violated. In a nutshell, there were two sides to this case, only one side has been afforded the right to put their side, if this were a criminal case, you would be looking at the the most blatant of miscarriages of justice, as with most cases of miscarriages of justice, and this was no different, the legal rights that any individual has or had to rely on the evidence if denied for one reason or another, which is by now, evidently proven, such actions are not only malicious, but those who have been partial to those evident were never PREDOMINATELY MOTIVATED AS TO SECURE THE ENDS OF JUSTICE......
  4. callum1999
    I have and i did in the second witness statement. The judge was obliged to look at them, or is there a separate set of rules for anyone legally qualified to make representation. The Judge was also invited to consider the evidence during their application, again he declined. You cannot pick and choose what evidence needs to be considered, it does not work that way.
  5. callum1999
    No it wasn't pointless at all, if it was pointless, it would not have been an option on the Order, and i was focused on the strike out application, because it was struck out has nothing to do with me not being focused, the Judge and the Courts were the ones who were not focused. Like for example not considering the evidence that if considered, which was not considered would have proved there were no grounds to strike my claim out, the complete reverse, you know this, as do they. So was the judge right to dismiss my previous solicitors and my previous barristers evidence which evidently pointed out (a) the negligent act (b) in support of my claim and completely opposing any grounds for the other-side to strike out. The evidence was there, in full, the Courts and more importantly the Judge did not want to consider it, as plain as.
  6. callum1999
    Notice of the right to set-aside was sent and dated 25th July 2016, this was emailed to the Defendant and the Court on the 25th July 2016, and within the period stated under paragraph 6.
  7. callum1999
    It was exhibited and subsequently indexed after the statements and other evidence was listed, in file and within the bundle and in compliance with Paragraph 3 of the order made 18th August 2016. So in answer to your final paragraph, no, it would not be deemed hearsay as it had been correctly disclosed and indexed..
  8. callum1999
    The witness statement was sent by email and by post on 4th August 2016, to the Court and the Defendants. Notice was also served on the same day 4th August 2016 i was going to make application, which i did for the right to have the Courts own order set-aside, which was indicated under paragraph 6 of the order.
  9. callum1999
    The judge also dismissed as being not of any relevance, Shelters evidence,( exhibited) and in particular the fact that they had referred it onto to a firm of solicitors for an injunction to be sought against the Council. When i tried to point this out he said that the solicitors were not duty bound to seek an injunction, i politely pointed out that they were duty bound to inform Shelter and me before taking over the case, that they could not meet the needs of the referral and should have declined to act if their intentions were not what was needed at that time. They should have said thanks but no thanks, try another firm of solicitors who are more likely to get the order that has been referred to us. I explained to the judge that no-one had twisted their arm behind their back to take the case on, they obviously were not suited to represent and act but still took the case on knowing that they would not risk any application to seek an injunction, which they were minded and obviously agreeable too in allowing Shelter to pass the case over.
  10. callum1999
    Upon referral after transfer from the High Court and reading the Defendants application for the claim to be struck out. IT IS ORDERED THAT 1. List for hearing on 18th August 2016 with a time estimate of 2 hours. 2. The Claimant shall serve a short statement in reply to the application to strike out by 400pm 9th August 2016 ( i complied with that order witness statement set out below) 3.Both parties shall file and serve statements at Court by 11th August ( Complied and with exhibits incl the evidence in support of negligence and reasons set out by solicitors who were dealing with negligence claim) that the judge stated he would not consider. 4. The parties shall submit proposed directions , to be agreed if possible by fax or emailed marked for the attention of the District udge, no later than two days before the listed hearing.( complied with)) 5. The parties are inviteed to file a consent order prior to hearing with a view of the hearing being vacated. 6. The Court has made this order on its own initiative pursuant to Rule 3.3 of the CPR, Any party affected by this order has the right to apply to set it aside vary or stay, by application not more than 7 days after this order was served on the party making the application, (made application to have order set aside, under n244 application and exemption form with proof) court said they did not receive when i telephoned to confirm i had made application. the clerk said it was probably within the system but not sure. Dated 18 July 2016 Claimants response to the above order: WITNESS STATEMENT OF THE CLAIMANT. I the Claimant will state; And in in accordance with the order made by District Judge ? on 19th July 2016. 1. The Defendants application and the merits on which they intend to rely upon, and in particular alleging the Claimant has breached CPR 16.4 by alleging the Claimant is in abiuse of the process, and on the grounds that the Claimant has failed to properly to plead or particularise is claim is evidently unfounded and misrepresented. 2. If, which the Claimant denies, that CPR 16.4 been reached , any previous Court officer , if minded, any Judge on considering the Particulars of claim would have been in a position of (a) giving notice of breach (b) and making an order under the Courts own imitative as to remedy or strike the Claimants claim out if the Claimant was breaching that procedure which was not the case. 3. Further, on considering the Particulars of Claim, Master ? QC, after considering the Particulars of Claim was minded and had formed an opinion that the merits of the case was suitable for multi track. 4. In respect of the Defendants second allegation to strike out the case, again on the balance and on the strength of evidence there are a number grounds to warrant a claim for professional negligence, the Claimant has not just taking the decision on what he feels was a series of negligent acts, but has previously also taking legal advice from a number of qualified professionals, solicitor, who are by far, more legally qualified than the Claimant, who have identified and giving evidence to the Defendants that shows n a number of occasions, and in particular, ignoring the Claimants instructions that all point to the same fact that the level of service and any obligation duty the Defendant owed the Claimant, on this occasion was not to a standard that fell way below, and on a number of occasions below the standard such profession would reach. The Defendant also makes reference in support of their application and for reasons that the Claimant claim be struck out on the grounds of unsupportive evidence. The Claimant has provided a considerable amount of evidence that he feels would prove beyond any doubt, add to this the Defendants continually refusing to to provide a notice to admit facts, is not because those facts undermined the Defendants defence, this evidence would further support the unsupportive evidence that the Defendants have referred too, which is not the case. The Claimant believes this statement is true and to the best of his knowledge Signed and Dated 3rd August 2016
  11. callum1999
    Contained within the witness statement and was part of the exhibit's that was in compliance with the Order.
  12. callum1999
    During the hearing i said that i was relying on the report from previous solicitor/barrister who were dealing with any claim for negligence. They were adamant that the solicitor profession neglected his duty whilst representing me, and the letter and facts between both solicitors was disclosed for me to rely upon. According to the judge at hearing, when asked to consider this communication, in his words, i dont have to consider that, funny that, because had he considered the evidence his judgment could well of been different, he did not take that oppotunity when presented with the evidence, and when this was mentioned during the hearing.
  13. callum1999
    I am assuming that if the Court/Judge have been told despite being giving the opportunity on numerous occasion to show the validity of a legitimate contract, but refuse such obligation and breach DPA and any rights a client has to request this and under the criteria set which would also breach SRA, the Court and any judge when giving notice as to any doubt in a contract would as it is in the interest of justice, make sure and when asked to, order the other-side to proof the validity of the contract, which and giving the other-sides refusal is more likely, than not, to establish no contract was in place, which would mean that in any event, they had no right to legally represent me, would want this proofed. They have clearly stated and when asked how the case was funded under CPR18, that the contract was based on public funding. Again i have invited the other-side to proof this and have been advised by the ICO and LA, that form CW1 would have been fully completed and with supportive documentation of being qualified for legal representation to be made, and in their possesion. The other-side and again whilst breaching DPA have not and when invited provided the form CW1 which i would have had to have signed in order for them to represent me from the start. If i were the firm and i had this proof i would have provided by now, they have not, but the Courts who are now aware of the contract issue are adopting the same principle which would suggest, there was no contract..
  14. callum1999
    Hi Andy, Yes the last three pages have assisted me in my appeal process. Would be a shame to close the thread, but it is entirely your choice, Callum.
  15. callum1999
    The OP does not need to establish that there has been fabrication or perjury that solely derives from the initial pleadings in a litigation, quite the reverse. The defence is just that, its a procedural obligation, that can be used, even by dodgy solicitors, means nothing, in a nutshell and as with my case, a load of old nonsense, and just a reason as to object to the obvious, that is all. You cannot hide behind a defence, if such procedure, and if properly implicated, have been adopted by those who are obliged to secure the ends of justice, they after all are public servants.. and paid way over the top for such privilege, imo, would have seen straight through that, but as previously stated, "not it" but "when" now.........
  16. callum1999
    Well said Steampowered, As for taking the needed time and the effort to click the flag, as to review a post, it is really not worth the effort tbh, but thanks for reminding, appreciated.
  17. callum1999
    Request made under and provided CPR 18 for further information on the defence, is fabricated, and deals with the contract that was never in place.. There was no legitimate contract in place. And all attempts and via the Courts and reporting this to the relevant authorities would also show this significant fact. If they cannot prove a legitimate contract had ever been in place that is the end of it. Add to that, the very fact that they were prepared to breach the Data Protections Act, that would also demonstrate this significant fact, it is not a matter of "if" but now "when" will be paramount and all that has gone on before, in this litigation will not be of any relevance, what so ever. There was no contract, fact..
  18. callum1999
    That is right nothing has been established but that is not to say it never happened, the problem is that the Courts and now a judge have declined to establish these points, that has nothing to do with me. I made an application prior to the judgement that the other side provide proof of contract, the judge dismissed this. If there was no legitimate contract in place to represent, that would been game, set and match, everyone knows this, and not only would a strike out application never have been applied for, gaining a judgement without a legitimate contract as to even legally represent, IMPOSSIBLE. Like i have said i have giving the solicitor, his firm, his indemnity insurers, his solicitor, his barrister, two Courts and a District Judge (cough) the invitation to show me a legitimate contract, all have declined, very odd that. Very odd, the ICO also feel this is odd, as this information should and could have been giving under DPA1998..... Still at least we can get the matter back to a proper Court and allow a proper judge decide without being influenced under the good old Civil Procedures Rules.
  19. callum1999
    Stack of cards about to fall, the question is, how many will the solicitor bring down with him, an uneducated guess would probably estimate 6 or 7..
  20. callum1999
    So if that defence used to initially defend the claim, and is further used in Court to obtain an Order, has now been established as being part fabricated, the clock is certainly now ticking. A bunch of educated criminals, that is all they were, but made mistakes, no-one is above the law, and no-one is immune from perjury if they tell porkies in Court, its all been recorded:lol:
  21. callum1999
    GM it was what was in the Defence, that the applications were being requested, to discredit the claims being made, because they were false and misleading. I am not saying know one has the right to defend the claim, but if in that defence, some of the facts are misleading or would show negligence, that's it, the defence must be taking as all correct and proper. I have made a claim, they have defended my claim, i want to have the same opportunity giving to them, to defend my claim, by providing evidence and facts to dismiss the defence that they have choosing to rely upon. Surely it dont stop because a defence has been giving, if that were to be the case, everyone would be fabricating a defence which would lead to the case against them being struck out, on those principles. It is and i would assume about striking a balance, however that balance has been well and truly been tipped in favour, not because of the facts, but because of how the system was played. They thought this was going to be an issue one, it is not proving that way because ive been down this road before, its a game.. i know that, but they dont know that i do.
  22. callum1999
    If applications have not been considered, is this an abuse of process? My argument is that i was unable to present evidence that could have opposed my claim being struck out. Am i right in thinking it would have been in the interest of justice, for the Judge to have considered all the evidence, for and against the application.
  23. callum1999
    GM could you please put up a an example of CPR32.18 only being relevent as to comply with only if liability has been admitted by the party being requested to provide a Notice to Admit Facts. I thought the part reason for any trial has to be based on not admitting liability, and the reason why the trial would be needed, as to establish liability.
  24. callum1999
    But it does matter, whether they were obliged or not they gave their reasons, costs, and that reason has been giving to me and the Court for non compliance, and this has been accepted, and not only accepted, a reason why those facts were concealed.
  25. callum1999
    No i would not admit to a fact that was not true, but if i had been giving the option of "not admitting" to a fact, that is what i would do. They were not just giving the option of admitting facts, they were also giving the option of not admitting facts, no-one has pushed them into a corner, they have had the option to say "we do not admit that we never had the relevent funding in place" as an example

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...