Natwest taking me to court ***All 3 Claims Discontinued***

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

Thought this would interest you..........

 

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/cashier_stole_3k_from_northampton_bank_and_forged_documents_to_cover_her_tracks_1_3180175

 

Gez

[texanbar]

Hi caggers,

 

I know I'm being paranoid here, but am noticing a few 'guests' on this thread. Is it safe for me to be posting the WS on here before I get this in to court next week?

 

Tex

[texanbar]

xx

[texanbar]

Dear me....

 

Think that was my £3k which has gone missing LOL!

:0)

 

 

 

Hi Tex

 

Thought this would interest you..........

 

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/crime/cashier_stole_3k_from_northampton_bank_and_forged_documents_to_cover_her_tracks_1_3180175

 

Gez

[gezwee]

Hi Tex

 

Guesties can't access attachments on here, log out for a min and try opening one of your previous ws attachments and you'll see what I mean.

 

New members with 0 posts are always a concern

 

Gez

[caro]

Hi caggers,

 

I know I'm being paranoid here, but am noticing a few 'guests' on this thread. Is it safe for me to be posting the WS on here before I get this in to court next week?

 

Tex

 

Presumably you have to submit your WS before the hearing anyway, and frankly I suspect they aren't working at this time on a Sunday night. ;-)

[texanbar]

Okay - thanks everyone,

 

Please find the 2 WS attached.

Tex

CAGMRSTEX.doc

CAGMRTEX.doc

[texanbar]

Okay, we guess no news is good news - the WS will remain as they are and hand-delivered tomorrow. Many thanks to everyone for their best wishes and support (esp Andy, Gezwee) in this final push before the hearing next Tuesday.

 

I wonder who will be singing Christmas carols at midday on Tuesday 20th December.

 

Wish us luck folks!

 

Tex

x

[AndyOrch]

Ok Tex/Gez well done.

 

Tex I note you refer to the case i posted but I think you need to include (pref at the end of both WS ) in your closing paragraphs.The Claimant is quite clearly trying to avoid its duties under CPR 38.7 etc etc

 

Preventing subsequent litigation: res judicata and abuse of the court's process

 

 

Resource type: Practice note

Jurisdictions:England, Wales

 

This practice note provides guidance on how the court will consider whether litigation should be prevented as res judicata or, as an abuse of process because it raises issues which have, or could have, been decided in previous proceedings, or is an attack on a previous decision or finding.

Regards

Andy

 

 

[texanbar]

Hi Andy,

Okay, so I'll add the following to both WS in the closing paragraph:

The Claimant is quite clearly trying to avoid its duties under CPR 38.7.

 

CPR 38.7 provides that a claimant which discontinues a claim needs the court's permission to make another claim against the same defendant if:

 

• the claimant discontinued the claim after the defendant filed a defence; and
  
• the other claim arises out of facts which are the same or substantially the same as those relating to the discontinued claim
  

Apologies, do I need to add something further to address the Preventing subsequent litigation: res judicata and abuse of the court's process?

 

Many thanks for your help Andy, I'll hang fire before re-printing the final pages until I hear back.

 

x:)x

 

 

 

 

Ok Tex/Gez well done.

 

Tex I note you refer to the case i posted but I think you need to include (pref at the end of both WS ) in your closing paragraphs.The Claimant is quite clearly trying to avoid its duties under CPR 38.7 etc etc

 

Preventing subsequent litigation: res judicata and abuse of the court's process

 

 

Resource type: Practice note

 

Jurisdictions:England, Wales

This practice note provides guidance on how the court will consider whether litigation should be prevented as res judicata or, as an abuse of process because it raises issues which have, or could have, been decided in previous proceedings, or is an attack on a previous decision or finding.

 

Regards

 

Andy

 

 

[AndyOrch]

The Claimant is quite clearly trying to avoid its duties under CPR 38.7 the court will consider whether litigation should be prevented as res judicata or, as an abuse of process because it raises issues which have, or could have, been decided in previous proceedings, or is an attack on a previous decision or finding.

 

Probably would have more impact in your intro were you deal with the CPR 38.7 Tex

 

Andy

[texanbar]

Great - okay all understood Andy. I shall add it in under point 4 which is the first point after the 'introductions'

 

Many thanks

Tx

[IainHL]

Just wanted to wish you good luck for tomorrow Tex (and Mr Tex). I hope you are finally able to put this matter to bed (apart, of course, from the pending wasted costs!).

[caro]

Yes. Good luck Tex. Just holler if you have any last minute thoughts you want to sort tonight or in the morning.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

best wishes and good luck tex:!:

[texanbar]

Thank you dear friends, you all beat me to it!

 

Yes, please wish us the best of luck for tomorrow - really really hope it goes our way and it doesn't ruin our Christmas.

 

Surprise surprise, we received today a letter today from IM with guess what...?

 

"Statement of Costs of the Claimant" in readiness for the hearing tomorrow. They state: they shall request that the DJ summarily assess these costs at the hearing!!

 

We shall keep you posted soon after 11:00am - watch this space!

 

x:)x

xx

[gezwee]

Best wishes to you and Mr T for tomorrow........ and none of your smutty comments to the dj please, lol

 

Gez

[caro]

Best wishes to you and Mr T for tomorrow........ and none of your smutty comments to the dj please, lol

 

Gez

Oh I don't know Gez. If it helps swing the balance in Tex's favour ................

[determindator]

Sending strength and determination to you Tex and Mr Tex for today X

[texanbar]

Dear friends,

 

Okay, following our day in court, in a nutshell:

 

Mr T's application for N244 to strike out was dismissed due to non-compliance of CPR 38.7 which clearly states it is about the 'same' defendant;

SJ for NW was dismissed - thankfully we produced compelling evidence which meant the defendant has a chance of successfully defending the claim

We have until 9th January 2012 to re-submit a new defence

We have until 9th January 2012 to pay NW costs of £350.00

 

Now the gory details:

 

Whilst waiting for our time to see the DJ, NW representative offered to see us in a consultation room, we politely declined.

We were seen at 10am in the DJ chambers and his first question to Mr T was "do you remember receiving the monies from the Bank?"

 

The hearing was very one-sided. Although he looked at our WS, he said the bank was entitled to chase monies, despite previous proceedings against Mrs Tex. He was not interested at all in previous DJ's comments.

 

After 30 minutes of our 45 minute allocation, we raised the point that we had been paying monies to NW which had not been taken into account. The monies were paid into an old expenses account which CMS directed us to do back in 2005. The DJ then ordered NW rep to make a phone call to check if this was correct. The DJ said, he would squeeze us back in later in the morning to pick this up.

 

We all retired into a consultation room and NW's buffoon left the room to make a phone-call to NW. He came back in to tell us that NW categorically deny any monies had been paid into this expenses account and in fact this account had lain dormant since 2005.

 

We were then ushered back into the DJ's chambers at approx. 12:00 where the DJ asked NW's rep if he made the phone call. He replied he had and relayed the same conversation. The DJ loved him and said, "there is absolutely no reason for me to doubt what Mr Buffoon has said so it would appear this information is correct. Mr Tex is there anything you would like to add, because I completely support Mr Buffoon"

 

All I can say is thank goodness we had the foresight to take in 2 copies of documents we had from CMS clearly stating the payment arrangement of the O/D to this expenses account - the documents were dated 2007 and 2008 which clearly showed payments had been made. We also wanted to raise the fact the a/c had been terminated in 2005 (again we had documents) but the DJ was very dismissive. We did not even get the chance to challenge the said amount.

 

It was only from this point the DJ looked at the Part 24 of the SJ and declared due to compelling evidence that SJ was dismissed.

 

Mr Buffoon, then presented his costs, initially of some £1008, to which the DJ glanced over and agreed that £350 was a fair sum due to the amount of sheer hard work he must have done for this complex case.

 

The DJ said there was more than meets the eye and we therefore have been granted 14 days to re-submit a defence. Mr Buffoon pushed for 3rd January, 2012 but the DJ said due to bank holidays etc.. he would grant 9th January, 2012.

 

The DJ finished the hearing by thanking Mr Buffoon for all of his help in the matter and said he had helped him enormously throughout the hearing! The DJ pushed that we should all look to mediate and sort this out amicably without litigation so as to save costs.

 

May we please ask for help in pulling together a new defence - whether or not myself or Mr Tex have the energy to go through this again to trial is currently being debated. I guess it will all come down to whether we can use my Bill of Costs against settlement with NW.

 

Thanks to those of you who sent us best wishes for today - it is greatly appreciated.

 

Tex

Edited December 20, 2011 by texanbar

[AndyOrch]

Pretty much even stevens then Tex.You stopped the SJ though so that wont go down well.I assume you didn't raise the matter of your impending costs?

Or " as res judicata or, as an abuse of process because it raises issues which have, or could have, been decided in previous proceedings, or is an attack on a previous decision or finding." ?

 

Bear in mind the DJs words " The DJ pushed that we should all look to mediate and sort this out amicably without litigation so as to save costs." You need to find out the true figure outstanding on this O/D your true indebtedness and then offset this against your costs, preferably through mediation, for your own sanity.

 

I will send you a PM Tex something to consider.Our guest is back:wink:

 

Well done on today

 

Andy

[texanbar]

Thanks Andy,

 

No I didn't get the chance to mention my costs at all - he also wanted to make it clear that a line would be drawn underneath my claims (and subsequent ruling) and there would be no talk of any vexatious or abuse of process.

 

The DJ said he had read the authorities supplied (ie Westbrook; Henderson etc) and through the oral submissions given he could not find any support from within.

 

Yes - I have spotted the 'guest' - I shall check my PM.

 

Thanks again Andy

[gezwee]

Evening Tex

 

Well done for today

 

Gez

[caro]

Sounds like you put up a good fight despite a biased judge Tex, so well done. Whatever you decide I hope it's sorted soon.

[texanbar]

Dear friends,

 

Here's to a healthy and prosperous New Year.

 

Mr Tex and I would like to start pulling together his defence this week ready to submit by 9th January (next Monday). We are currently looking at the figures and working out which we believe is the correct amount once we have taken off the charges and payments made since 2009.

 

Once we have got the figures, I'll paste these on here and hope to ask for some help and guidance to put this together. I'll be back on later.

Warmest wishes,

Tex

x:)x