HUMBLEMAN vs HFC-WEIGHTMANS COURT ACTION

[citizenB]

one BIG BIG BIG huge mistake was not calling their witness- his evidence could have been destroyed in the twinkling of an eye (well by any otehr judge)

 

a lesson for us all here is that we MUST call witnesses who give statements about things they know nothing about

 

Especially if, as H states.. the witness wasnt even with the company at the time.

 

I understood that multi and fast track cases were more thorough and based on facts and not probabilities ?

[vjohn82]

For those interested in following my cases too... HFO/Turnbull decided to discontinue today.

[the_shadow]

Especially if, as H states.. the witness wasnt even with the company at the time.

 

I understood that multi and fast track cases were more thorough and based on facts and not probabilities ?

 

All civil cases are on the balance of probabilities, however the higher the court normally the more ruthlessly employed strictness of evidence is in effect and the more CPR must be followed.

 

"Justice for all" was the cry.... "Justice for all..........that can afford it or find competent representation" is the actual.

 

The judge commented that she had seen many personal injury cases, perhaps that is where her specialty resides.

 

S.

[the_shadow]

For those interested in following my cases too... HFO/Turnbull decided to discontinue today.

 

Well done VJ... some good news at last albeit not at the hand of a judge

 

S.

[pedross]

I agree with Diddy & CB about the witness statement in hindsight. I say it that way because I would probably not have objected at the time but in view of the fact he had no idea about the correct details first hand it was not reliable evidence.

 

However, I have a feeling that the part that I think gave you the biggest problem was that the Judge and then the Barrister kept referring to points as 'technical'. The defendant is relying on *** which is a technical point, so suggesting its not a major issue, is how I read it. But these were legal arguments you were putting forward and not technical issues at all. The incorrect terms were in breach of the requirements of the CCA 1974, hardly a technical point but legal requirements.

 

Pedross

[humbleman]

I agree with Diddy & CB about the witness statement in hindsight. I say it that way because I would probably not have objected at the time but in view of the fact he had no idea about the correct details first hand it was not reliable evidence.

 

 

When I questioned this WS at the second CMC the Judge even commented that he doubts if he really kowns much more than what's written in the WS, so not much point

[Docman]

H

My comments when I read the transcript the first time you published were CABotted because I did call the mental capacities of the judge into question by using a 6 letter word beginning with s and ending in d, which is something I should not have done since we can never question the mental state of members of the judiciary, as I am sure all Caggers will agree.

However, having slept on it overnight and now re-read the transcript, well, just let's say gut reactions are often nearer the truth. Now, I see you have another thread going as to your appeal, so I will post my comments there later.

Have you had a copy of the judgment itself yet and have you decided to instruct a barrister directly?

[patrickq1]

My point was not that of creditors right etc. My point was more to do with -

 

What about when a lender terminates the agreement whilst in default and them issues a claim and then during the course of the claim try and remeday the situation.

 

this is a situation me and davefire already have with Morgan Stanley huh dave

[patrickq1]

All civil cases are on the balance of probabilities, however the higher the court normally the more ruthlessly employed strictness of evidence is in effect and the more CPR must be followed.

 

"Justice for all" was the cry.... "Justice for all..........that can afford it or find competent representation" is the actual.

 

The judge commented that she had seen many personal injury cases, perhaps that is where her specialty resides.

 

S.

her speciallity resides in childcare ?

[humbleman]

Have you had a copy of the judgment itself yet and have you decided to instruct a barrister directly?

 

Very conveniently they hadn't received the transcript from my transcriber, so they have been sent another and I have been told that the Judge will look at it today.

 

I will post as soon as I am in receipt.

 

I have a couple of Direct Access barristers, I have asked them what info. they need to give me an indication of success which they should really have no difficulty with, since it's an appeal based on a point of law. I am awaiting their replies.

 

I will need help in trying to put together a brief for a barrister, if anyone is upto it.

[davefirewalker]

this is a situation me and davefire already have with Morgan Stanley huh dave

 

Absolutely......and one that will be remedied in the course of time...(shortly I hope)

 

Dave

[foolishgirl]

For those interested in following my cases too... HFO/Turnbull decided to discontinue today.

 

Well done VJ... some good news at last albeit not at the hand of a judge

 

S.

 

Seconded, Shadow - excellent result VJ! At least the claimant used some common sense

[justify]

Seconded, Shadow - excellent result VJ! At least the claimant used some common sense

 

 

Congrats VJ!! That lifts the spirits!!

 

J

[Ruprecht]

I always thought "respect" had to be earned...

 

I suppose we shouldn't stoop to other's levels though.

 

I, like most people these days, get angry when a someone receives a huge public sector salary and a future huge public sector pension then treats the very public funding it with no respect.

 

All but one of my hearings at the CC have taken place informally around a table in the Judge's chambers. It must have been intimidating enough for an LiP to have to conduct his case in open court, go in the witness box etc and before all that to get such distasteful remarks before even presenting their case.

 

It sounds more like a criminal trial rather a civil contractual dispute.

 

If you were say a shipping company from a country on the other side of the world or any sort of corporate entity disputing a contract in the Court you wouldn't be treated like that!

Edited January 19, 2010 by Ruprecht
spelling...

[SkemDosser]

What seems to be happening is that the lenders are with the help of a series of carefully planned trials trying to re-write the CCA 1974. I can remember 4 years ago if they didn't have an agreement not only would they write off the balance but also remove data from the credit file. Now in courts they bring in an application form with any t & c's and that suffices for not only s.77/s.78 but also for enforcement.

 

The legal profession who are sympathetic to consumers are also very guarded to see these lender in the higher courts since it will reduce their future income if there is a landmark ruling in favour of the consumer.

I think the last paragraph is spot on and something we should all be aware of and keep at the forefront of our mind. The CMC involvement in these ordinary consumer issues is also a double edged sword. Their bottom line is to make MONEY and if that income stream is affected by too many consumer wins too high up the court system setting simple precedents that reduces the need for them, well...

 

CMC involvement has it positive side but I have a gut feeling their policy is to settle out of court as much as possible, and their supporters [some of which are on this forum] have admitted as much.

 

Whilst good for the stress levels of the individual consumer involved and a decent little earner for the CMC, it doesn't do the overall cause much good,which needs some decent judgements in higher courts in favour of the ordinary consumer.

 

I may be overly cynical but that's why I think CMC activity in the courts [as sen at Manchester] is appearing rather half-hearted- if not downright inept.

 

Unfortunately the consumer is being positioned [again] between a rock and a hard place. It is up to us as members of a independent non-profit making forum/co-operative to devise a strategy that helps US, not the bank balances of some other profit motivated company[ies].

[Docman]

H

 

I too was surprised the case ended up with a Circuit judge in a court room. One has to think about some people's ego, perhaps, but I had better not go there!

 

I instructed a barrister under the Direct Access scheme about a year ago. I'll dig out my papers and post them when I get home later tonight.

[humbleman]

H

 

I too was surprised the case ended up with a Circuit judge in a court room. One has to think about some people's ego, perhaps, but I had better not go there!

 

I instructed a barrister under the Direct Access scheme about a year ago. I'll dig out my papers and post them when I get home later tonight.

 

That would be great, what was the outcome

[diddydicky]

When I questioned this WS at the second CMC the Judge even commented that he doubts if he really kowns much more than what's written in the WS, so not much point

 

on the contrary all the more reason for calling him

 

the judge accepted his evidence and i recall you mentioning earlier that he was the MD and didnt even know anything about it

 

calling him would have discredited his evidence

[Mydogsawestie]

Hi Humbleman am up to page 27 of your thread/injustice & gaining lots of advice as I read it (prompted by Seriously fed up). I am in a similar position as today I rec'd my DJ decision with a JUDGEMENT against me :shock:from my SJ hearing last July. I have to appear at a Notice of handing down of Judgement hearing??? 28th Jan....9 days away. Been waiting on directions all this time so gutted to say the least as in court the DJ told me he was dismissing there summary judgement until the next hearing so dont know whats gone wrong between then & now as hoped something along the lines of them having to do disclosure etc I had such high hopes:-

 

My CCA has never been produced (Priority Request form no prescribed terms etc so should be unenforceable) No T & C only recent 2008 ones sent. (Judge is satisfied me having been served with a COPY of Priority Req Form & CURRENT T & C & says it complied with requirements of S.78.) WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO MY RIGHTS TO SEE ORIG & ALSO THE FORM HAVING NOne OF THERE SIGNATURES ON IT???

DN is defective........ 9th Jan remedy date 26th Jan2009 (14 clear days it was not) Judge has disregarded the practice directions given in my defence as deemed it to be served to me on the 12th Jan so exactly 14days .

 

This DJ says he is satisfied the Claimants acted properly in its dealings and I have been seen to delay & frustrate there well founded claim. & there will be costs & other ancillary issues to be addressed with this at the hearing next week too....:cry: I am in pieces!!!!!

 

my thread is Court papers help required pls ....but I shall continue with your thread reading in the meantime.....cannot believe how unjust it is all becoming with this judges lottery society we are all being a part of. Your post/threads are showing v good advice & reading so far....your strength & positiveness amazing....I hope my next 8 days with what I am having to face in such a short period of time placed on me will result in further knowledge of this soon. Thanks MDAW

[humbleman]

MDAW

 

My advice to people would be don't go to the final hearing as LIP, if you think there is going to be any hostility by the Judge, this would be apparent at the allocation hearing or the CMC.

[Mydogsawestie]

so is my handing down of judgement hearing a final hearing on the matter then? sorry to hijack here (you can post on my thread if you like)....as with 8 days & counting wondering what I should be doing next now...as like you dont have any money to battle on with a barrister for this:confused: I am still reading thru your thread at this time though with hope

[humbleman]

I have now got the form N460 AND the reason for refusal to appeal is:

 

Findings of facts made against defendant-who was not believed. Various technical points of defence were not sufficiently established on the facts.

[letsgetitsorted]

and the facts were not established.....because hmmm let me see, you wasnt given the chance

[vjohn82]

Ummmm... facts the Claimant proved? None... the barrister admitted he didn't have the documents. The Judge believed in a fairytale... you might aswell have taken the lochness monster with you instead of me humbleman... it would have been more fitting in that courtroom where magic seemed to be in the air

[humbleman]

she basically looked at me and decided you fit within the don't want to pay, as simple as that.

Edited January 22, 2010 by humbleman