Dissecting the Manchester Test Case....

[lookinforinfo]

Sorry Angrycat, I was referring to High court judgements in general rather than Carey v HSBC in particular.

[nick20045]

Sorry Angrycat, I was referring to High court judgements in general rather than Carey v HSBC in particular.

Think people should realise the difference between a County Court, a High Court, a Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

[angry cat]

Think people should realise the difference between a County Court, a High Court, a Court of Appeal and the House of Lords.

 

???

 

HHJ Judge Waksman QC, was sitting as a Judge of the High Court.

[nick20045]

???

 

HHJ Judge Waksman QC, was sitting as a Judge of the High Court.

Was he?

 

Or was it the Merchantile Court.

[nick20045]

???

 

HHJ Judge Waksman QC, was sitting as a Judge of the High Court.

So are you saying that there is how many courts? And what presidence do they have on each other?

 

Have a look........ BAILII - BAILII Databases

[diddydicky]

i think the mercantile court is a division of the queens bench!

[lookinforinfo]

The Mercantile Court is a division of the High Court.

[diddydicky]

..........which is made up of the family court, queens bench and Chancery

 

i believe the mercantile court is a division of the queens bench- would that be right?

[angry cat]

..........which is made up of the family court, queens bench and Chancery

 

i believe the mercantile court is a division of the queens bench- would that be right?

 

High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division).

[diddydicky]

High Court of Justice (Queen's Bench Division).

 

thanks.

[paulwlton]

I don't think that is quite right Paul. I think the Mcguffick and Carey cases have set a precedent in the High Court. Other Judges in the High Courts will tend to go along with the decisions of the two previous judges if only to prevent confusion in future cases.

Judges in the High Court cannot now overrule Judge Waxmans

decisions [that can only be done by higher courts] but paradoxically they are not obliged to follow his decision. So by

explaining in which way their case is distinct from the Carey one,

a Judge could circumvent the earlier decision without appearing to overrule it.

 

I'm assuming a similar case to Mcgrufick will end up in the big boys court too?.

[lookinforinfo]

If that is the case, then you know much more than I do............

 

PS How many variations of McGuffick do you do?

[angry cat]

I'm assuming a similar case to Mcgrufick will end up in the big boys court too?.

 

Only a matter of time, Paul.

[basa48]

I don't think that is quite right Paul. I think the Mcguffick and Carey cases have set a precedent in the High Court. Other Judges in the High Courts will tend to go along with the decisions of the two previous judges if only to prevent confusion in future cases.

Judges in the High Court cannot now overrule Judge Waksman's

decisions [that can only be done by higher courts] but paradoxically they are not obliged to follow his decision. So by explaining in which way their case is distinct from the Carey one, a Judge could circumvent the earlier decision without appearing to overrule it.

 

That's right. It was my understanding that both McGuffick and Carey (and the others in Manchester) were heard purely to set a precedent for the County Courts to follow.

 

Even then if it can be shown these cases don't apply (which they don't in s61 prescribed terms cases) the judge and the parties cannot use them.

[emandcole]

I was in court today for an application hearing and after giving the claimant a rinsing for failing to provide the documentation I've been asking for, for about 6 months the judge had a quick look at the agreement.

 

He turned to me and mentioned that although he wasn't up to speed on the case he reminded me that the recent Waksman case would have a bearing on any argument I raised as to the validity of the agreement.

 

Little confused by this as that case involved the creditor as defendant and the debtor as claimant.

 

Has this case had such an impact that regardless of who is taking whom to court this case essentially means the creditor can produce a signed bit of toilet paper, get some work experience kid to swear it's a genuine example and the court just buys it?

 

Also, what happened to the CPR rules stating that where a claim is reliant on an agreement that the claimant must produce the original in court? Has this case just levelled these CPR requirements?

 

Finally, isn't it the case that a final ruling has not yet been reached but is due shortly?

[haggis1984]

I was in court today for an application hearing and after giving the claimant a rinsing for failing to provide the documentation I've been asking for, for about 6 months the judge had a quick look at the agreement.

 

He turned to me and mentioned that although he wasn't up to speed on the case he reminded me that the recent Waksman case would have a bearing on any argument I raised as to the validity of the agreement.

 

Little confused by this as that case involved the creditor as defendant and the debtor as claimant.

 

Has this case had such an impact that regardless of who is taking whom to court this case essentially means the creditor can produce a signed bit of toilet paper, get some work experience kid to swear it's a genuine example and the court just buys it?

 

Also, what happened to the CPR rules stating that where a claim is reliant on an agreement that the claimant must produce the original in court? Has this case just levelled these CPR requirements?

 

Finally, isn't it the case that a final ruling has not yet been reached but is due shortly?

 

Wish I could answer your questions enandcole.

 

Can you link to your thread please? Id be interested to keep an eye on your progress

[diddydicky]

I was in court today for an application hearing and after giving the claimant a rinsing for failing to provide the documentation I've been asking for, for about 6 months the judge had a quick look at the agreement.

 

He turned to me and mentioned that although he wasn't up to speed on the case he reminded me that the recent Waksman case would have a bearing on any argument I raised as to the validity of the agreement.

 

Little confused by this as that case involved the creditor as defendant and the debtor as claimant.

 

Has this case had such an impact that regardless of who is taking whom to court this case essentially means the creditor can produce a signed bit of toilet paper, get some work experience kid to swear it's a genuine example and the court just buys it?

 

Also, what happened to the CPR rules stating that where a claim is reliant on an agreement that the claimant must produce the original in court? Has this case just levelled these CPR requirements?

 

Finally, isn't it the case that a final ruling has not yet been reached but is due shortly?

 

unfortunately the act says SHOULD produce the original in court not MUST

 

only the CREDITORS are allowed to rely on semantics and "technicalities" before the judge

 

when we do it it is called "trying to wriggle out of our responsibilities"

[royalblue1878]

Just got this from a dictionary site if it helps the judge!

 

should

 

  /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [shood] –auxiliary verb

 

1. pt. of shall.

 

2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.

 

3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.

 

4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

[lookinforinfo]

I was in court today for an application hearing and after giving the claimant a rinsing for failing to provide the documentation I've been asking for, for about 6 months the judge had a quick look at the agreement.

 

He turned to me and mentioned that although he wasn't up to speed on the case he reminded me that the recent Waksman case would have a bearing on any argument I raised as to the validity of the agreement.

 

Same thing happened to me and I just pointed out that the Waksman case inolved a situation where the debtor was taking the creditor to Court whereas here it was the other way round and the onus was therefore much more on the creditor to prove there was an agreement.

 

Think the Judge was a bit surprised when I came back like that so I confirmed that I had read the whole transcript.

[vint1954]

..........which is made up of the family court, queens bench and Chancery

 

i believe the mercantile court is a division of the queens bench- would that be right?

High Court

 

The High Court consists of 3 divisions, the Chancery Division, the Family Division, and the Queen’s Bench Division. Decisions of the High Court may be appealed to the Civil Division of the Court of Appeal.

Chancery Division: Companies Court

 

The Companies Court of the Chancery Division deals with cases concerning commercial fraud, business disputes, insolvency, company management, and disqualification of directors.

Chancery Division: Divisional Court

 

The Divisional Court of the Chancery Division deals with cases concerning equity, trusts, contentious probate, tax partnerships, bankruptcy and land.

Chancery Division: Patents Court

 

The Patents Court of the Chancery Division deals with cases concerning intellectual property, copyright, patents and trademarks, including passing off.

Family Division: Divisional Court

 

The Divisional Court of the Family Division deals with all matrimonial matters, including custody of children, parentage, adoption, family homes, domestic violence, separation, annulment, divorce and medical treatment declarations, and with uncontested probate matters.

Queen’s Bench Division: Administrative Court

 

The Administrative Court of the Queen’s Bench Division hears judicial reviews, statutory appeals and application, application for habeas corpus, and applications under the Drug Trafficking Act 1984 and the Criminal Justice Act 1988. It also oversees the legality of decisions and actions of inferior courts and tribunals, local authorities, Ministers of the Crown, and other public bodies and officials.

Queen’s Bench Division: Admiralty Court

 

The Admiralty Court of the Queen’s Bench Division deals with shipping and maritime disputes, including collisions, salvage, carriage of cargo, limitation, and mortgage disputes. The Court can arrest vessels and cargoes and sell them within the jurisdiction of England and Wales.

Queen’s Bench Division: Commercial Court

 

The Commercial Court of the Queen’s Bench Division deals with cases arising from national and international business disputes, including international trade, banking, commodities, and arbitration disputes.

Queen’s Bench Division: Mercantile Court

 

The Mercantile Court of the Queen’s Bench Division deals with national and international business disputes that involve claims of lesser value and complexity than those heard by the Commercial Court.

Queen’s Bench Division: Technology and Construction Court

 

The Technology and Construction Court of the Queen’s Bench Division is a specialist court that deals principally with technology and construction disputes that involve issues or questions which are technically complex, and with cases where a trial by a specialist TCC judge is desirable.

[diddydicky]

Just got this from a dictionary site if it helps the judge!

 

should

 

  /ʃʊd/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [shood] –auxiliary verb

 

1. pt. of shall.

 

2. (used to express condition): Were he to arrive, I should be pleased.

 

3. must; ought (used to indicate duty, propriety, or expediency): You should not do that.

 

4. would (used to make a statement less direct or blunt): I should think you would apologize.

 

exactly:_

 

you should not smoke near the petrol pumps - implies a request

 

 

you must not smoke near the pumps is an instruction to obey

[emandcole]

Wish I could answer your questions enandcole.

 

Can you link to your thread please? Id be interested to keep an eye on your progress

 

Here you go, thanks for the interest. I know it's going to be a good one

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/221243-link-financial-check-out.html

[emandcole]

exactly:_

 

you should not smoke near the petrol pumps - implies a request

 

 

you must not smoke near the pumps is an instruction to obey

 

Think I've got a mind block (been out training all morning in the cold and it was minus 3 when I started) as my brain doesn't work properly yet .

 

Can we interpret this definition and in turn the CPR requirement to produce original documentation as 'they should', an actual request or 'they should' as an 'if they want to'?

[haggis1984]

Here you go, thanks for the interest. I know it's going to be a good one

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/debt-collection-industry/221243-link-financial-check-out.html

 

Lol if page 1 is anything to go by its gonna be epic!

[angry cat]

exactly:_

 

you should not smoke near the petrol pumps - implies a request

 

 

you must not smoke near the pumps is an instruction to obey

 

You should not smoke near the petrol pumps, unless you wish to burst into flames!