VG - Vs Northen Rock - Charging Order

[Von Greenbach]

OK Martin

 

I don't want to give the impression I'm some kind of "amateur" legal bod.

[MARTIN3030]

I know what you mean....but being a CAG bod does bring lots of unseen benefits:D

[Von Greenbach]

Can anyone point me in the direction for this case law

 

Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society [1996] 4 All ER 119

 

I can't see anything in the case law library on CAG and Google is not much help either.

 

My hearings next week and I've quoted it within my defense I'm worried in case I'm asked about it.

 

TIA

[kiptower]

is this any good

 

House of Lords - Jackson and another (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) v. Royal Bank of Scotland (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants)

[Von Greenbach]

I saw that on Google Kip but I don't think it's what I'm after

 

Thanks for the suggestion

[ukaviator]

Von

 

PM me a valid e mail address to pass onto Pt. . . He should be able to help with that request.

[Von Greenbach]

PM sent UK

[ukaviator]

Received. Hopefully we can get it sent to you in the morning.

[SOD'EM]

29. The Court of Appeal applied the first rule in Hadley v Baxendale 9 Exch 341 as explained by Asquith LJ in Victoria Laundry [1949] 2 KB 528. Potter LJ said that loss of the chance or opportunity of repeat business should in principle be available, and that the issue in this case was for how long it was or should have been in the reasonable contemplation of the parties that the trading relationship would continue. In para 29 he referred to the statement by Evans LJ in Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society[1996] 4 All ER 119, 127J-128A that the starting point for any application of Hadley v Baxendale is the extent of the shared knowledge of both parties when the contract was made. In para 31 he observed that the claim, as presented at the trial, was one for loss of business profits made up of specific transactions none of which had yet been concluded at the time of the Bank's breach. It depended on the chance or contingency that Economy Bag would act so as to enable Samson to make that profit as explained in Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602 where, at p 1614C, Stuart- Smith LJ said that the plaintiff must prove as a matter of causation that he had a real substantial chance as opposed to a speculative one. Thus far the judgment proceeded on orthodox lines, and there are no grounds for criticism.

 

 

This may help a bit?

 

 

 

House of Lords - Jackson and another (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) v. Royal Bank of Scotland (Original Respondents and Cross-appellants)

[SOD'EM]

Sorry, Kip's already done it.

[gyzmo]

Think this may help...

 

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

[gyzmo]

errr, dunno where or why those words appeared, but thelink works

[Von Greenbach]

Cheers for the help I'm sorted now.

[Von Greenbach]

Sorry if this is a stupid question but I've seen these CPR references used in a lot of threads but don't understand the difference

 

what's the difference between the 2 and which situation requires the correct CPR request?

[noomill060]

Bump- Id like to know too.

[cerberusalert]

CPR Part18 = Obtaining Further imformation PART 18 - FURTHER INFORMATION

 

 

CPR 31.14 = Documents referred to in statements of case etc. PART 31 - DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION OF DOCUMENTS

[Von Greenbach]

Thanks for the links but those refer to getting the court invloved.

 

I'm confused about using CPR 18 & CPR 31.14 when requesting information from a claimant in support of creating a defense.

 

Sorry if I appear a bit stupid.

[shakespeare62]

There's a forum link here that might help :-

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/159445-getting-them-reveal-their-6.html#post1833261

 

I believe from the above, CPR 31.14 can only be used to inspect documents explicitly mentioned in the Particulars Of Claim, when it is used in a small claims procedure - it can only be used while the case is still 'trackless' i.e. before your defence has been submitted and subsequently allocated by a judge to a track.

 

In small claims, CPR 18 can also be used (whilst trackless), e.g. where documents have not been explicitly mentioned in the Particulars Of Claim, however it should not be used as a replacement for an SAR, in other words limit to a list that is strictly relevant to the claim e.g. copy of agreement, default notice, notice of assignemet, deed of assignment, rather than say demanding a list of all telephone conversations etc.

 

that at least is my understanding of the above from SurfaceAgentX20's comments....

 

In both cases tho' you should emphasize that it cannot be dismissed under CPR 27(f) for Small Claims, providing the Request is made whilst the case is still 'trackless'

 

Any thoughts anyone ?

[Von Greenbach]

What's the difference between set aside & strike out?

 

I've requested a set aside on an interim charging order, should I be requesting the claimants case be struck out?

[Von Greenbach]

Update:

 

I attended my hearing this week, on checking in with the court user, I was introduced to the claimants solicitor prior to going in, the solicitor asked me what I'll be saying to the judge, I said that's between me and the judge, the solicitor hands me some documents, this is what I'll be relying on he said, the Rankin case, I gave him the documents back and said there is nothing in there that affects my case.

 

In we go, I knew as soon as I walked in that it had debtor on my head, just a gut feeling, the judge deals with my set aside application, having considered my application, it's dismissed on the basis I admitted the debt on the N1 court papers, he asked did I admit liability for the debt, and I said with all due respect, it's not a question of liability it's a question of have the claimants followed the correct procedure in bringing this claim, the judge said, it is about liability and asked do I admit I'm liable for the debt seeing as I've had the money, I started to panic at this stage as said yes, although I tried to explain that Payplan had instructed me to sign the form and forward onto them, he was not having any of it, set aside application dismissed he said, again, I tried to explain that as per my GPs letter I suffer with a psychotic condition, when the court claim came through, I panicked phoned Payplan, and they told me to sign and forward it on to them, no, he was having none of it, again he states set aside application dismissed.

 

We move onto interim charging order, the judge asks the solicitor if they've informed any other creditors of there application, he said no, I then said they're aware I have xxx creditors, the judge then states on reading the I&E supplied by Payplan, although it states xxx creditors as no individual creditor is listed, therefore, NR given priority re charging order.

 

The judge then states, he's read my defence and believes there is a strong possibility the claimant will succeed with their claim, I tried to explain about Woodchester & Swain case, but no, again he was having none of it, he asks the solicitor what is the figure they are looking to secure, the solicitor gives him a figure, new date to be set for the interim charging order to be made final.

 

The solicitors costs of £xxx for the set aside hearing is granted.

 

The judge was on /off / on / off with the tape throughout the hearing, at the end, he turned the tape of and said, “he's read my lengthy and in specific detail defence about the claimant not complying with the correct legislation, but in his view the claimant will succeed with there application, and the more I try to dispute it, the more costs I'm going to incur”

 

Good day.

 

And we leave the room.

 

This was going to be my part of my defence Image - TinyPic - Free Image Hosting, Photo Sharing & Video Hosting

 

I have 21 exhibits showing where the claimant has fallen down on legislation, case law quotes, OFT debt collection quotes, but I never got to present any of that.

 

I felt intimidated and disadvantaged not being allowed to show the claimants errors, maybe I'll be given a chance at the next hearing, but in all honesty I doubt I'll attend, I neither have the psychological strength or confidence to go through it again.

[Von Greenbach]

Whilst the site does not encourage advice via PM, in this case, if anyone does have any suggestions / advice can you please PM me, just incase Evershi*s are monitoring this thread.

[noomill060]

Thinking of you, VG.

[womble72]

Just Pm you.

 

My thoughts are the creditors are reading this cag site and are using it for there benefit and maybe we are putting too much information on here ?

 

The judge is a disgrace and this is not the only case this week which has been all one sided.

 

Are the judges suppose to look at both sides of the coin. It doesnt seem to be the case to me and i am annoyed that Von has been treated so badly.

 

Also what happen to the the charging order process ? Surly Von would have to default on the ccj before they can have a CO.

 

Unfair to the other creditors and if it is a joint mortgage surly unfair to his wife !

 

If Evershields are reading this "WE WONT GIVE UP"

 

Most people in this country think that we deserve what we get by borrowing a load of money and not paying the big bullies back.

 

That is not the case and people for whatever reason lose there jobs or they are ill and simply cant afford to repay.

 

Von uses Payplan and he is trying to make an effort to pay what he can afford and the judge should see this but no chance.

 

Von dont give up. You still have a arguement of stopping them with a co.

 

Anybody else with an opinon of why the judges are not being helpful i would like to know.

[Von Greenbach]

Thank you womble for your kinds words of support.

 

I'm hoping some of the experts on here will know if this is the end of the road re my case.

[hammyhound]

Don't give up VG, people on here will support and help you.

 

I felt like that at my last hearing, mine's coming up at the beginning of March.

 

Between now and your next hearing people will help you and you must attend your hearing for the CO. You know I am and I will fight them to the bitter end, I know that solicitors etc are reading these and they are just bullies.

 

The judge at my hearing had to ask who I was, opened the file and I didn't even get a chance to speak. She should have realised that I had a installment order in place but nevertheless asked if I wanted to adjourn to seek legal representation!!!!

 

If the Judge at my next hearing does the same and allows the CO it will overturn the Mercantile case on its head. It will mean that any Claimant at any time during the lifetime of the debt apply for a CO and be successful - disgraceful.

 

Anyway enough of be harping on keep plugging into the threads, people will help you including me if only to give you moral support.

 

HH