HFO claimform - old Morgan Stanley Card Debt **WON**

[coledog]

Same as you BA, could not resist reading this one. Too chilled to post anything meaningful anywhere but love and best wishes to all!

[pt2537]

lol Cole and BA,

 

I would love to wish all at HFO a happy new year, sadly however, i dont think its gonna be so happy for them when i file my notice of acting and notice of funding lol.

 

(Edit)

Edited December 26, 2010 by maroondevo52
Removed inappropriate comment.

[coledog]

Calm down PT - have you been on the sauce!

[DonkeyB]

:lol:

[pt2537]

moi? lmfao erm, only ever so slightly and its for medicinal purposes your honour hiccup

[coledog]

I am sure that I can find some spare sage and onion in case you wish to re-instate the edited bit.

[pt2537]

oh well,

 

I guess i cant say that,

 

sigh, well, i cant wait to get the matter in hand before the court, so the court can deal with the offending matter "appropriately"

[pt2537]

oooooh a spot of PAXO lol yeah thats "appropriate"

[pt2537]

but on a serious note,

 

I do believe that there is enough to look at Counsels opinion on Contempt of Court, i do believe that there has been lies told, the file of papers shows this is the case, and the fact that a witness statement backed with a statement of truth which totally goes against the matters pleaded, has been filed shows that the statement of case is simply untrue

 

So, knowingly signing a statement of truth that you know is untrue is contempt of court, as it is lying and furthermore such conduct becomes a breach of the SRA code of conduct as to mislead the Court is a serious offence,

 

I do intend on obtaining the judgment when this matter goes to trial so that others can use it

[broken arrow]

So, knowingly signing a statement of truth that you know is untrue is contempt of court

 

One of many.

[pt2537]

yes BA ,

 

Trouble is, you need all the facts to fall into the right slots, so that you can raise such an argument without the solicitors worming out of it, and saying " we were instructed this was the case"

 

However, in this current matter, i think i have more than enough direct evidence to prove on balance we are correct, and that there has been a lie told

[broken arrow]

You would expect the sols to get it right when they actually own the the DCA, but soooo looking forward to the outcome of this one.

The evidence is building for a number of others and their time will come.

[pt2537]

once i have counsels opinion , then i will speak to the persons involved and see if they wish to pursue any complaint available to them

[DonkeyB]

Exactly BA – the collection agent HFO Services is run by the solicitor, Turnbull Rutherford (extract from OFT, below).

 

The claimant also has the director and solicitor of Turnbull Rutherford, Mr A Turnbull, as a director. So it would be rather difficult to instruct yourself badly.

 

[pt2537]

Exactly BA – the collection agent HFO Services is run by the solicitor, Turnbull Rutherford (extract from OFT, below).

 

The claimant also has the director and solicitor of Turnbull Rutherford, Mr A Turnbull, as a director. So it would be rather difficult to instruct yourself badly.

 

 

 

But there is always a way, to get around that, this is the trouble, when you think you have them nailed, they find a way out

[DonkeyB]

You mean admin error or rogue employee?

[pt2537]

well, kind of, for example, a manager who is employed by HFO could instruct TR, and on the basis of those instructions, TR act.

 

They could not be criticised by the SRA if this happened, sadly, as it would be above board

[DonkeyB]

Even though TR is listed as RUNNING HFO? Surely it instructs itself? And is only answerable to itself?

[pt2537]

i wish it were that simple mate, but its not

[DonkeyB]

Hmmm... would info on similar behaviour in other cases be helpful?

[pt2537]

no,

it will assist if there is a formal investigation,

 

however each matter is taken on its own facts, so for example and a hypothetical situation but, just because there is misconduct in case, it will not be evidence of misconduct in a second case, if that makes sense

[pt2537]

Every statement of case, including a claim form and particulars of claim, must be verified by a

statement of truth (see 23.11). A person who makes a false statement in a document verified

by a statement of truth, without an honest belief in its truth, is guilty of a contempt of court

(CPR, r. 32.14(1)). Thus there is now a degree of consanguinity between statements of case,

witness statements and affidavits, and it would not perhaps be surprising were there to be

further blurring between such documentation in the fullness of time.

 

 

 

Blackstones seems to agree with me

[pt2537]

23.13 A person who makes a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth, or who

causes such a statement to be made, without an honest belief in its truth, is guilty of contempt

of court (CPR, r. 32.14(1)). It must be shown that the person knew (a) that the statement

was false, (b) that it was likely to interfere with the course of justice (Malgar Ltd v R.E. Leach

(Engineering) Ltd [2000] FSR 393; KK Sony Computer Entertainment v Ball [2004] EWHC 1984 (Ch), LTL

11/8/2004). Proceedings for such contempt can only be brought by the Attorney-General or

with the permission of the court (r. 32.14(2); PD 32, paras 28.1 to 28.4). This is to ensure

that proceedings are brought only when required in the public interest (Malgar Ltd v R.E. Leach

(Engineering) Ltd, in which the court refused permission because the alleged contempt was

not sufficiently serious; KK Sony Computer Entertainment v Ball, in which the court granted

permission and imposed a fine of £2,000).

The belief stated in a statement of truth (and the consequent responsibility for making a false

statement) is that of the party putting forward the document, save in the case where a party is

conducting proceedings with the aid of a litigation friend, in which event the statement of

belief is that of the litigation friend (r. 22.1(5)). Although it could possibly be argued that

both a litigation friend and the party on whose behalf such friend is acting, could be jointly

or independently responsible for the accuracy of the statement of truth in the (possibly rare)

circumstances where it could be shown that the party was aware that the statement was false,

this seems to be precluded by the terms of r. 22.1(5).

When a statement of truth verifying a document is signed by a legal adviser of the party

putting forward the document, its contents and the consequences of signing it are deemed,

by virtue of the signature, to have been explained to the claimant, and the signature will be taken by the court as meaning that the client has authorised the representative to sign

(PD 22, para. 3.8).

 

ut ohhhhhhhhhhhh someones in troubleeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[DonkeyB]

Oh I do rather like that.

[broken arrow]

A number of their statements of truth are signed TR, which is not a real person, just the initials of Turnbull Rutherford, is this allowed?

Edited December 27, 2010 by broken arrow