Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[InformedSearcher]

I have to say that I was brought up to understand that banks were honest and upstanding, as I am sure others here believed as such. It's a real shame that we are now in an age where we no longer trust them. This episode adds only to confirm this. The fact that the Barrister commented on this group and thread, might well have been prudent for her to have kept quiet about. Shame on them all!

 

Michael

 

I have to say that I was brought up to understand that banks were honest and upstanding, as I am sure others here believed as such. It's a real shame that we are now in an age where we no longer trust them. This episode adds only to confirm this. The fact that the Barrister commented on this group and thread, might well have been prudent for her to have kept quiet about. Shame on them all!

 

Michael

Edited March 9, 2010 by citizenB
merged duplicated post

[dad]

To Mischon de Reya and Mr X of Counsel:

 

This thread exists exclusively to assist Shakespear62 in preparing his litigation against American Express. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

It is possible that for you even to read this thread might to amount to a breach of your professional codes of conduct and be impermissible for Mr x to advance at trial.

Edited March 9, 2010 by dad
clarify 'this'

[paulwlton]

It's good to see a Judge on the ball....well done s62

 

Could you post up the documents they were relying up on.

[Desperate Daniella]

Good morning, Guest.

[citizenB]

To Mischon de Reya and Mr X of Counsel:

 

This thread exists exclusively to assist Shakespear62 in preparing his litigation against American Express. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

It is possible that for you even to read this might to amount to a breach of your professional codes of conduct and be impermissible for Mr x to advance at trial.

 

This is interesting. Shoosmiths, Eversheds and Restons among others patrol these forums. Would be great if we could slap them down with something "legal":)

[patrickq1]

did i not read somewhere that one party can now oppose a discontinuance under CPR (for instance where it might be in the public interest for the matter to be decided)?

on VJohns thread....

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/245294-vjohn82-hfo-services-limited-18.html#post2815554

HFO tried to discontinue it has been opposed

[means2anend]

This is interesting. Shoosmiths, Eversheds and Restons among others patrol these forums. Would be great if we could slap them down with something "legal":)

 

Abit like 'locking the stable doors after the horse has bolted' dont you think...after all could they not say it was already in the public domain or something to that effect.

 

 

m2ae

[foolishgirl]

did i not read somewhere that one party can now oppose a discontinuance under CPR (for instance where it might be in the public interest for the matter to be decided)?

 

You've always been able to apply to have a discontinuance set aside - CPR38.4, public interest doesn't come into it at all. It has to be done within 28 days of the discontinuance notice.

 

Another link:

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/dca-legal-successes/192275-ccj-interest-debt-ccj-20.html

[shakespeare62]

Sorry folks - I'm a little behind in doing my write up. In the meantime some brief comments to make

 

While this other matter is going on, there is a big threat opening up on the respondent's flank in the form of the Default Notice. His Honour Judge [X] at the hearing yesterday made it clear that when the statute states MUST, in relation to the 14 notice period which is required for a Default Notice, then the Court cannot go against the statute and pass it off as "de minimus".

 

The Judge made other important comments about the DN, but I'd rather include them in a word document which only a 'logged on' user can read.

[Guest]

subbing

[shakespeare62]

execellent news

 

and was he raising doubts too about using "XX days rather than a specific date, or just the service?

 

He further stated the respondent can't go down the Default Notice route issue one regarding an alleged breach, terminate, realise later they've failed to give the Statutory 14 days notice and claim it was a termination for some other reason (than the Default Notice)

[shakespeare62]

But CPR is useful to argue that even CPR defines time scales for Service via Post, so Amex and others have to allow for transit time if they elected to use Post rather than personal service, i.e. to ensure the Consumer is given the correct number of clear days (7 or 14, depending on when the Default Notice was issued).

 

In the case of all Amex DNs we have seen, they have failed to do so.

 

Oh dear. How sad. Never mind.

 

The Judge also made important comments about the postal system, and that if the CPR deems first class post takes a certain amount of time to be delivered then it is reasonable to assume first class post would take a similar amount of time for delivery when serving a Default Notice, even if it does occur outside of litigation.

[citizenB]

I think I like your Judge, S62.. can we clone him

[patrickq1]

Sorry folks - I'm a little behind in doing my write up. In the meantime some brief comments to make

 

While this other matter is going on, there is a big threat opening up on the respondent's flank in the form of the Default Notice. His Honour Judge [X] at the hearing yesterday made it clear that when the statute states MUST, in relation to the 14 notice period which is required for a Default Notice, then the Court cannot go against the statute and pass it off as "de minimus".

 

The Judge made other important comments about the DN, but I'd rather include them in a word document which only a 'logged on' user can read.

just post it on to your freinds shake but go back a page and see dads disclaimer you have users privelage and the opposition cannot use it lol

[shakespeare62]

To Mischon de Reya and Mr X of Counsel:

 

This thread exists exclusively to assist Shakespear62 in preparing his litigation against American Express. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

It is possible that for you even to read this thread might to amount to a breach of your professional codes of conduct and be impermissible for Mr x to advance at trial.

 

Nice one Dad ! Thank you ..

[WelshMam2009]

Well done for your persistence Shakey!!

 

I have issues with the authenticity of my MBNA agreement (application form actually) where they have declined to respond to any communication asking for confirmation that page 2 was indeed the actual reverse of the agreement and furthermore, that the document is available for inspection.

 

Strangely, the SAR only yielded the first page and my query regarding whether or not there was a page 2 has been similarly ignored!! I am sure it's a generic document...

 

Anyway, I await the findings of your expert with baited breath and wish you the very best with this!

[Guest]

Abit like 'locking the stable doors after the horse has bolted' dont you think...after all could they not say it was already in the public domain or something to that effect.

 

 

m2ae

 

probably imo. imo posting in a public forum may indeed be regarded as a waiver of any privilege.

[Desperate Daniella]

Good Lord - a judge who actually realizes that a statute is a statute! Aren't you the lucky one, S62?

 

I know from other threads that some judges think they can use their discretion here. It's clearly up to us to make it very, very clear that they can't do this -otherwise we can appeal on a point of law I would think.

 

DD

[WelshMam2009]

The Judge also made important comments about the postal system, and that if the CPR deems first class post takes a certain amount of time to be delivered then it is reasonable to assume first class post would take a similar amount of time for delivery when serving a Default Notice, even if it does occur outside of litigation.

 

I didn't think that CPR 6 was relevant in respect of DN's and only applied to service of court documents??

 

Part 6 rules about service apply generally

 

6.1

 

This Part applies to the service of documents, except where –

(a) another Part, any other enactment or a practice direction makes different provision; or

 

(b) the court orders otherwise.

 

 

I thought CCA 74 was covered by the interpretation Act 1978 and the subsequent Queens Bench Practice Direction 1985.

 

I know CPR doesn't include second class post and always thought that delivery periods were more advantageous (i.e. longer as weekends not included) in the Practice Direction.

 

Clearly I am missing something here!!

[JonCris]

I have amended DADs post as follows

 

As we know some firms have been arguing that by LiP’s discussing their claims on the internet they have prejudiced their case.

 

However as we know as the costs of litigation are beyond most consumers means they simply have no alternative but to seek advice in this way. Therefore it may be that this advice, though in the public domain, may still be privileged & firms should not seek to ID such litigants

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

Therefore it is possible that for the opposition to try & use statements from a specific thread to advance their arguments at trial might amount to not only a breach of the DPA but also a breach of the professional codes of conduct.

[regan11]

Wow what a story. Best wishes with your fight and I await a happy outcome. you win and these big institutions realise that the law also applies to them. I hope that they fall into every hole they have dug themselves.

[oilyrag]

I would venture to suggest that it is definitely a breach of the professional codes of conduct to behave in this way. It demonstrates clearly just how weak their case must be to resort to restricting how much knowledge a LIP can accumulate. How many solicitors and barristers would even qualify as articled clerks in this day and age without resorting to the internet.

 

Finally this is predudicial to the administration of justice and the right to a fair trial. This is surely fundamental to court procedures even here and is a breach of the human rights convention, very much strengthened by the Lisbon Treaty and it would be a foolish judge indeed to ignore such issues.

 

regards

oilyrag.

[means2anend]

good afternoon GUEST!!!

[dp77]

Bear in mind a Barrister, acting for the claimant, stood in front of a Judge and produced a document which was claimed to be "the original".

 

I would suggest, if the document is proven not to be the original, that it is a little more serious than a breach of a professional code of conduct, it would be fraud, which is usually a criminal offence.

[Desperate Daniella]

I spoke to a barrister friend of mine about that because I was so appalled by this barrister's conduct, and she said that if the client tells the barrister that the document is the "original" the barrister has to believe them. She might, in private, express her doubts (or be blunter than that) but if they insist it is the original she has to accept it, even if she personally disagrees with them. She can tell them what she thinks of it, of course, but ultimately if they want to stick to it being the original until the forensic expert proves otherwise then she has to take their instructions. Therefore, whatever we think of this barrister, I think it's extremely unlikely that she'll suffer any penalty because as we've said she was acting for the claimant.

 

Hi Guest.

 

DD