Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[diddydicky]

well, i dont know if i should send you a bill for 5 hours reading at 9.25 per hour ?

 

better not, and i must make a note never to park on your driveway when i come and watch the gills beat brizzol rovers!!

 

i admire your tenacity,

 

as you have said you are a man of straw that gives you a strength few others would posses in taking these parasites on

 

for what its worth i think you have done a great deal of damage and even though it is amex my money is on them seeking to withdraw at the last minute because they cannot afford the precedents that might be set!

 

ill be following with interest and with your permission will be using some of your arguments stated in your appeal to actually re inforce my defence in order to box the judge in a bit more on his decision making

 

dick

[diddydicky]

i see there are provisions in the CPR nowadays for an appelant to oppose an application to withdraw from proceedings which i hope he uses if he has to

 

shakespear could do us all a massive massive favour by proving this document to be unsound as it will destroy any future attempt for any creditor to re create agreements

[diddydicky]

by his own admission, shakespear does not have too big a pot to p*ss in so i think that as it is in all our interests that he succeed i think we should all offer to chip in if he needs it for the expert witness

 

I'm in for starters

[diddydicky]

And count me in for a contribution to the expert witness.

 

This is not the first time I've heard of Mishcon arriving on the scene at the last minute - I know of another case where the original solicitor left, bottled or was dumped (not sure which, but it was Brachers) a day before a trial hearing and Mischon turned up in court, with £5k of expenses - racked up in 24 hours, all neatly itemised in a nice folder.

 

This seems a deliberate tactic, in order to rack up the costs as much as possible they change solicitors at the last minute, to a firm who are very expensive and whose name is likely to intimidate some judges. Bullying basically.

 

One thing I would like to clarify, if the defendant turns up with a barrister, and the claimant loses, or withdraws, or fails to appear, are they liable to pay for the defendants barrister? If so I think we should get Shakey lawyered up. If the claimant is liable if they lose or bail then I'm very happy to stump up some fighting fund, I've seen one of these "originals" first hand and I'm very happy to back my opinion.

 

it's a good point but from what i am reading shaky is doing a far better job than he can expect from a barrister!!

[diddydicky]

Everyone - thanks for your support.

 

Friends and family will help me 'sort out' arrangements for an Expert Witness - we're talking forensic science using the latest techniques. This process is already under way.

 

I can't afford a Barrister. I've noted the advice and goodwill on here and owe it to Caggers to consider offers to contribute for one, to help win this fight, for the good of all.

 

Plan A - is to consider the feasability and implementation of a plan to engage a Barrister.

 

Plan B - is to continue fighting the case myself - I'm not doing too badly, Amex have brought up their 'heavy artillery and I've thrown back their attack twice already.

 

In relation to plan A, the Barrister would really need to be a specialist expert in this field - if anyone can recommend a name, in strictest confidence please send me a pm (private message) - I'll clear down my box if it gets full.

 

Any advice on the financial aspects would be gratefully appreciated in the cause of common good (any suggestions from the site team ?)

 

pm angrycat- she knows one of the top bods

[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 .

[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

[diddydicky]

Champerty

• (n.) The prosecution or defense of a suit, whether by furnishing money or personal services, by one who has no legitimate concern therein, in consideration of an agreement that he shall receive, in the event of success, a share of the matter in suit; maintenance with the addition of an agreement to divide the thing in suit. See Maintenance. ...

Found on http://thinkexist.com/dictionary/meaning

 

 

it would seem to me that the accusation that a cagger did not have a legitimate concern is one that could not be sustained

[diddydicky]

Can't find the post m2ae. Can you post up a link

 

don't get too excited- it is not all it seems- there are important costs implications in this route and it is being appealed

 

if the appeal goes our way then yes it would be a very important landmark- but as usual, expect the other side to withdraw at the last minute if they feel it is not going their way and leave yet another loose end hanging

[diddydicky]

Never have got exited about these things as many times they can come back and bite your arxx

R

 

but it would be nice for one to go our way for a change

[diddydicky]

14/ so they are saying the the CLAIMANTS policy of not providing the original agreement overrules the COURTS policy that the original agreement should be produced!!

 

 

* are they going to provide the registered delivery slip from the OC to show the document was delivered to them on 4th feb if they had it all the time that might catch them out!

Edited February 28, 2010 by diddydicky

[diddydicky]

why not?

 

lets see how easily they can "reconstruct" a post office registered delivery slip with the right dates on it!

[diddydicky]

the appellant disputes the convenience of the document being "found on the 3rd and received by registered post by the the respondent on the 4th and requires the respondent to prove evidence of posting and subsequent delivery

[diddydicky]

They probably receive a number of Special and Recorded delivery items every day so they could produce a number of screenshots from the RM site showing their signature for items received.

 

I think you have better ammunition than that in your armoury.

 

Although......can you remember if the ''original'' agreement shown to you at court, was folded or likely to fit into an ordinary-Length: 240mm max/Width: 165mm max envelope because if sent 1st Class Recorded it would be £1.14

If a single unfolded sheet larger than above it would be an additional 22p.

This would be shown on the receipt obtained by the sender of the letter.

 

well they cant have their cake and eat it

 

if they say in their witness statement that it is not usual to go ferretting around some underground bunker on a polish airfield for the original agreement they are hardly likely to have posted dozens of them on the third to the solicitors office on the 4th!!

[diddydicky]

i think i would also include a paragraph as to your surprise that a major national creditor should not be aware that it is their responsibility to produce to a court in support of a money claim, the original agreement and that you find their stated pretence that they would not normally have to do so rather disingenuous

[diddydicky]

i take your points brw, however is suspect that the people who have to do the legwork (in retreiving the actual files) are lowly clerks and i doubt very much that their loyalty to the company stretches to perjuring themselves

[diddydicky]

sorry yes i did miss the point (not used to being up this early!!)

 

no doubt it will be the solicitor who makes the statement again as to the retreival!!

[diddydicky]

Not only that - I had warning they'd be doing so at the last minute. It's a well rehearsed routine they use.

 

how about any chance of a witness statement from the person concerned in the previous modus operandi?

[diddydicky]

this is better than a ruth rendell mystery- i await with baited breath!!

[diddydicky]

Hello Patrickq1!

 

I'm not disagreeing with you. Just suspect they could try the unexpected out of shear arrogance.

 

Another, probably more likely, possibility is they will bribe some minion to fess up to having made a huge error. The thing was indeed a re-creation, intended to portray what their Agreement would have looked like, had they not elected to destroy it.

 

The minion will no doubt say they misinformed their Global Securities Department, who in turn advised their slippery lawyers, in good faith, that the thing was original.

 

It was all a dreadful mistake, ever so sorry, it won't happen again, honest!

 

They are going to squirm and snarl, and whimper, then get snotty and say it would've looked like this anyway so, what's the problem.

 

I'm taking bets, winner donates to CAG!

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

my money is on a late withdrawal and generous settlement with a gagging order

[diddydicky]

i don't think luck will come into it myself!!

[diddydicky]

execellent news

 

 

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

[diddydicky]

i can see a discontinuance on its way....go for costs ,imo i wouldnt allow them one inch to get away with the possible charge of perj? this would also put to everyone that RECONSTRUCTIONS are dead in the water ?

 

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)?