Locked in car park

[foolishgirl]

Again I quote Lord Woolf:-

"They have to stand by their statements of truth signed by them, they sent them to the court, if they have lied, then the rest is a lie." Lord Woolf

 

I really want to find the source of this quote if anyone has any ideas where I might track it down.

 

What a apt one patma - for all sorts of occasions! I'll file it for future ref. but I'm afraid I don't know the source. Have you thought of writing to him to ask? I'm sure he'd be very flattered to discover you'd remembered it.

[Alphageek]

I have had a search around and can't find the source of the quote either. Sorry.

[hm_murdoch]

I think it comes from Lord Woolfs enquiy quite a few years ago in civil law try this page

 

United Kingdom - Changes in Civil Procedure

[Yorky2008]

Foudn this on google books relating to it:

 

Civil procedure - Google Books

 

False S.O.T.s amount to contempt of court...oh dear!

Edited October 21, 2009 by Yorky2008
additional info

[JonCris]

There is NO property in a witness so Fred can communicate with who he likes He would only be expected, as a matter of protocol, to communicate with the solicitor if he himself was a lawyer

[JonCris]

Fred should now write to the court pointing out that their amendments are a clear abuse of process in that it's a blatant attempt to move the goalposts to try & make it look that Fred damaged an already damaged barrier once they realized that evidence existed to prove their original statements to be at best misleading & at worst false

[JonCris]

Fred you really must sue these bums for harassment (arrest) & defamation at some point

[JonCris]

PS as they amend their arguments to suit the moment I would cease providing any more info to them

[Patma]

There is NO property in a witness so Fred can communicate with who he likes He would only be expected, as a matter of protocol, to communicate with the solicitor if he himself was a lawyer

That's great to know, thankyou JonCris:D

[Patma]

Fred should now write to the court pointing out that their amendments are a clear abuse of process in that it's a blatant attempt to move the goalposts to try & make it look that Fred damaged an already damaged barrier once they realized that evidence existed to prove their original statements to be at best misleading & at worst false

Agreed, we're on the case.

Also I've just been checking up on what the CPR says about the content of a defence and the defence they've filed today to Fred's counterclaim doesn't comply.

 

Content of defence

 

16.5

 

(1) In his defence, the defendant must state –

(a) which of the allegations in the particulars of claim he denies;

 

(b) which allegations he is unable to admit or deny, but which he requires the claimant to prove; and

 

© which allegations he admits.

 

 

(2) Where the defendant denies an allegation –

(a) he must state his reasons for doing so; and

 

(b) if he intends to put forward a different version of events from that given by the claimant, he must state his own version.

 

 

(3) A defendant who –

(a) fails to deal with an allegation; but

 

(b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant,

 

shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.

 

Fred you really must sue these bums for harassment (arrest) & defamation at some point

We're on the case;)

PS as they amend their arguments to suit the moment I would cease providing any more info to them

That's a very good point.

[Patma]

Foudn this on google books relating to it:

 

Civil procedure - Google Books

 

False S.O.T.s amount to contempt of court...oh dear!

 

Thanks for finding this, Yorky.

 

Oh dear indeed!

False statements

 

32.14

 

(1) Proceedings for contempt of court may be brought against a person if he makes, or causes to be made, a false statement in a document verified by a statement of truth without an honest belief in its truth.

(Part 22 makes provision for a statement of truth)

 

(2) Proceedings under this rule may be brought only –

(a) by the Attorney General; or

 

(b) with the permission of the court.

[Patma]

Was there a statement of truth stating that the barrier was in good working order. If so then how can they then amend the defence.

Be careful with this as they may have come up with a ploy that the damage was minor and Fred compounded it making it useless. Sureley they should be put to proof as to what the damage was.

The answer to your question Royboy, is yes indeed there was a statement of truth stating that the barrier was in good working order until Fred happened along and it's signed by the same person who has today admitted the barrier is a FAAC and claimed in his previous signed statement of truth that "The manufacturer the defendant mentioned called FAAC has had no involvement in this matter."

Now by sheer coincidence;) Fred and I sent the Principal and the Chairman of the Governors a whole list of false statements in the long detailed letter we sent them last week and included copies of them for good measure.

Their possible ploy is already neutralised too btw, no worries on that score.;)

[Patma]

What a apt one patma - for all sorts of occasions! I'll file it for future ref. but I'm afraid I don't know the source. Have you thought of writing to him to ask? I'm sure he'd be very flattered to discover you'd remembered it.

Thankyou foolishgirl, that was an excellent suggestion so I've done just that.

[Patma]

A brief read of this extract from Halsbury's Laws of England might cause a few worries for anyone from Plymouth College of Art who have made false statements.

Compliance: Penalties

[Patma]

Another development today is that they've grudgingly submitted a token defence to the counterclaim......through gritted teeth obviously.

Remember this from 18th September. Well!:confused:

They submitted another yesterday, a month after the first one.

And then it dawned on Fred and me that the court hadn't notified him when the first one arrived that a defence had been submitted to his counterclaim.

It looks therefore as though, they sent Fred the first defence but didn't file it with the court, or if they did file it with the court, the court didn't send out any notification.(Isn't that a bit naughty, either way?)

If the first one was notified to the court,presumably they would have needed to file an application to amend this latest one, which doesn't seem to have happened. "The first one does say that they reserve the right to submit another defence on receipt of the defendant's claim", but that could only have been a ploy, because they had definitely received the counterclaim.

 

We're going to have to chase this issue up with the court methinks.

[Mattyg2004]

I'd also be asking for the full un-edited version of the cctv footage showing how the barrier opens and closes without the aid of a 3rd party hand

[Patma]

I'd also be asking for the full un-edited version of the cctv footage showing how the barrier opens and closes without the aid of a 3rd party hand

 

Good idea.It would be very interesting indeed to see how the previous people exited before Fred.

It's supposed to operate via a free exit loop which is triggered when a vehicle goes over it, but that clearly wasn't working.

[Mattyg2004]

Good idea.It would be very interesting indeed to see how the previous people exited before Fred.

It's supposed to operate via a free exit loop which is triggered when a vehicle goes over it, but that clearly wasn't working.

 

I'm more interested in seeing the security guard lifting it up in the morning and then pulling it shut later in the day.

[car nut]

this just gets better and better

[Patma]

There's been an update today consisting of a letter from the court and a court order. Both of them are confusing and I don't want to post anything about them till I've got some clarification from someone who can make sense of them and/or clarification from the court.

Any legal eagles out there, willing to cast an eye over them, please let me know.

[BSC]

What's happened to TLD Patma?

[Patma]

What's happened to TLD Patma?

I don't know to be honest. I hope he's ok, but I haven't heard from him for about a month.

[pebsham]

I hope TLD is ok and he hasn't been "gotten to". I'm sure if he was just busy he would have told Patma. Last time he posted on CAG was the 19th.

 

Curiouser & curiouser.

 

Horses heads, pillows anybody?

[Bookworm]

Or maybe, he HAS told Patma why but Patma respects something told in confidence and we shouldn't keep on asking? ;-)

 

TLD, I hope you're ok, and Patma, I am sure that so much has been done now that derailing this freight train heading towards the college would be nigh on impossible (as long as no judge has been nobbled that is...)

[Patma]

I hope TLD is ok and he hasn't been "gotten to". I'm sure if he was just busy he would have told Patma. Last time he posted on CAG was the 19th.

 

Curiouser & curiouser.

 

Horses heads, pillows anybody?

I hadn't thought of anything like that pebsham, let's hope nothing like that has happened.

The only horses heads I've seen have been attached to their bodies fortunately, let's hope TLD can say the same.