Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[Yeats]

I would be more than happy to send a few quid and if enough contributed I'm sure we'd get there.

Shakey has done fantastically well and is a leading light to all of us Caggers in need.

[RobinWayRobinme]

Just updated myself on what happened recently. Belated congrats shakey. Good observation.

 

Just to give my input on the barrister/no barrister issue. I would ask the question, if all caggers had a choice and money was not an issue would you use a barrister? In answering for me, I'd say yes every time. Next question, how many barristers on direct public access scheme out there are sufficiently experienced in CCA? In answering for me, not many. Then the problem is, before any barrister will even look through your file, you will need to pay them, even if they just tell you at the conference that you don't stand a hope in hell.

 

I have myself looked into using a barrister and as like most, the cost of such a luxury made my choice for me. It was not just the cost at the start, but you need to add up the total potential cost, which can amount to thousands. I did pay for a barrister to advise me on the merits of my case and I was told that the chances of winning were slim and during the conference as I was challenging what she was stating I felt that I was merely educating her, rather than the other way round, and her opinion changed.

 

My conclusion was I had learnt a substantial amount about consumer credit from the knowledgeable caggers here and cross referenced to the actual legislation and reading the case law. Probably one of the main objectives of setting up this site in the first place was to help people like me and you to be able to fight these armholes. Personally, I am unable to help out Shakey with anything towards the cost of a forensic scientist, but for that cause, if I could I would. Off soapbox now.

 

Someone mentioned earlier about solicitors/barristers being changed so often, as has been the case with me. Check out the sols code of conduct and bar council rules for barristers. The answer, you may find there.

R

[haggis1984]

The answer, you may find there.

R

 

Sound like yoda you do

[RobinWayRobinme]

Sound like yoda you do

watched it too many times, I did

[Desperate Daniella]

Clearly Shakey could instruct a barrister through direct access - and there's no need to use a solicitor. Cut out the middle man to save money if you can. My barrister (on a totally different civil case and paid for me by a very good friend) is £200 per hour plus VAT. You pay depending on the experience of the barrister.

 

What do we know about the barrister who won the Bank of Scotland case in the Summer? Sorry, can't think of the case name. Does anyone else have one they want to recommend?

 

My barrister's chambers would probably have someone (obviously of course provided none of their members of chambers is instructed by Amex because despite the fact that any chambers will say it doesn't matter I personally wouldn't use any chambers where you've got two members up against each other).

 

Choice of barrister through direct access is limited though, because only those barristers who have done the direct access course are allowed to do direct access.

 

Apparently it's also good for anyone wanting to take silk nowadays to do pro bono work. This would be a fantastic win for any barrister.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Shakey and all Amexers,

 

Yeats needs help on his thread - it's a new thread so you won't be getting any email alerts.

 

AMEX - MISCON - COURT

 

Can't remember the title of the first thread.

 

Obviously the judgment against him could be affected by the judgment in your case, Shakey.

 

He's been screwed by this horrible lot and their "original" document so I'm sure you'll have some ideas. He needs advice this weekend as there is a costs hearing on Monday. I don't know how to do whatever application he needs to do.

 

DD

Edited February 13, 2010 by citizenB
ORIGINAL LINK NOT WORKING

[shakespeare62]

Thanks DD - looking now

[Desperate Daniella]

Thank you, Shakey.

[shakespeare62]

Just to give my input on the barrister/no barrister issue. I would ask the question, if all caggers had a choice and money was not an issue would you use a barrister? In answering for me, I'd say yes every time. Next question, how many barristers on direct public access scheme out there are sufficiently experienced in CCA? In answering for me, not many.

 

Robins got a good point.

 

There could also be some practical considerations in setting up some sort of fund - how would it be administered ? What if not enough money was received to instruct a Barrister - there would need to be some process to issue a "refund". Comments welcomed.

[haggis1984]

Robins got a good point.

 

There could also be some practical considerations in setting up some sort of fund - how would it be administered ? What if not enough money was received to instruct a Barrister - there would need to be some process to issue a "refund". Comments welcomed.

 

Maybe in the event that there is insufficient money to instruct a barrister all donations recieved go to CAG? Maybe offer refunds to people who donate over a certain amount.

[pt2537]

there are direct access barristers who will take instructions on a CFA basis

 

so you may not need any money

[JonCris]

Caution Champerty http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/judgmentsfiles/j1570/pirie_v_ayling.htm

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello JC!

 

Caution Champerty http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/j...e_v_ayling.htm

This may help there, something GuidoT came up with:

 

Hamilton v. Mohamed Al Fayed and Ors [2001] EWHC QB 389 (13th July, 2001)

 

It's worth reading for anyone looking to fund an action via a Fighting Fund, because it does go into some detail about the potential risks to those donating from exposure to CPR 51.

 

However, the Judgment seems to make a clear division between the s51 risks to a Professional Funder, i.e. liable via CPR 51 almost automatically, and the s51 risks to a Pure Funder, i.e. one who backs the litigant informally, either out of some desire for fairness in order to see a wrong righted, or by way of an innocent family donation, or by way of a small donation from someone not otherwise directly involved with the case.

 

Care needs to be taken, because protection from s51 is not as clear cut as one would think. But a Fighting Fund could be set-up in such a way that anyone donating to it can be protected from costs.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[JonCris]

Correct but in my view to avoid a finding of Champerty a donor should not benefit directly from any Judgement

[Gallahad]

Correct but in my view to avoid a finding of Champerty a donor should not benefit directly from any Judgement

Would that be financially only or would we obtain benefit of knowledge?

G

[haggis1984]

Correct but in my view to avoid a finding of Champerty a donor should not benefit directly from any Judgement

 

Could we not anonymise donations? Postal orders or something?

[JonCris]

Would that be financially only or would we obtain benefit of knowledge?

G

 

Direct benefit in their own legal action In other words they would be funding what for them would be a 'test' case the successful result of which they would argue in their own case

[diddydicky]

1000 caggers at a fiver each

 

they would have to have a lot of lawyers to sue that lot!

[diddydicky]

"A person is guilty of maintenance if he supports litigation in which he has no legitimate concern without just cause or excuse": see Chitty on Contracts (28th edition (1999) volume 1, paragraph 17-050).

Champerty "occurs when the person maintaining another stipulates for a share of the proceeds of the action or suit": (see paragrgaph 17-054).

 

The Criminal Law Act 1967 abolished both the offences and the torts of champerty and maintenance but expressly preserved the invalidity of champertous agreements. Champerty therefore still survives as a rule of public policy capable of rendering a contract unenforceable if the champerty is not justifiable. Because the question of whether a champertous agreement can be justified is a question of public policy, the courts keep the legal position under review as public policy changes.

 

A recent and full consideration of the position was provided by the Court of Appeal in Regina (Factortame Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions (No 8) [2002] EWCA Civ 932 (CA on 3rd July 2002, reported at TLR 9th July 2002). The Court of Appeal held that fees payable to a firm of reporting accountants, Grant Thornton, under an agreement giving them "8% of the final settlement received" was not unlawful champerty but pointed out that the position might have been different if they had acted as expert witnesses. Only very rarely would it be appropriatate for an expert witness (who is meant to be neutral) to be instructed under a contingency fee agreement.

 

In another 2002 case the House of Lords gave detailed consideration to the position in respect of recovery of contingency fees and "after the event" insurance policy premiums (see Callery v Gray HL 2002 UKHL 28 on 27th June 2002).

 

For general relevant notes see legal aid .

[JonCris]

2'5K! that would pay for a good barrister for about 1 day:D

[diddydicky]

Importantly, without maintenance there can be no champerty.

 

"The courts have made clear that a person’s motive is a proper consideration and, indeed, determinative of the question whether conduct or an arrangement constitutes maintenance or champerty. It is only when a person has an improper motive which motive may include, but is not limited to, “officious intermeddling” or “stirring up strife”, that a person will be found to be a maintainer."

[diddydicky]

2'5K! that would pay for a good barrister for about 1 day:D

 

1000 x 5 = 2500??

 

you can write my credit agreements any day

[JonCris]

If you applied for legal aid whilst telling them your a member of CAG or any other similar web site you'll probably be refused as you will be seen to be obtaining public funds to run a group action

 

If granted legal aid & the opposition tell the Commission your a member of a website where your informing the other members of your progress your certificate will probably be cancelled

[JonCris]

1000 x 5 = 2500??

 

you can write my credit agreements any day

 

OK two days:oops: still not enough

[Gallahad]

Seems everything is stacked against anyone getting justice

G