Solicitor/negligence claim:

[Ganymede]

No

Yes

District

9k, 5k to be paid in 14 days.

 

Argued and managed to get CPR 31.12 application, dismissed.

 

Why did you not ask for permission to appeal?!! You need to quickly get your written application in then if you do want to appeal.

[callum1999]

Really??! Did the Judge actually say that

 

Nah, he wouldn't say that now, would he

 

But the chance to prove that, has now gone, and on application.

 

He concluded, that they had not fabricated the contract, a quite remarkable achievement without wanting or allowing the Court to proof what is central to any solicitor/client dispute.

 

The fuuny thing is, that the solicitors offices and my file are a stonesthrow from the Court, i was willing to pop over there to ask for proof of the retainer, the other-side and the judge were not so eager for this simple objective, to be carried out, it would have only taking ten minutes, if that. v odd

[callum1999]

Why did you not ask for permission to appeal?!! You need to quickly get your written application in then if you do want to appeal.

 

And on what grounds?

 

I would have assumed that it would have been in the interest of justice, for such evidence to be proofed, i dont know.

[Ganymede]

And on what grounds?

 

I would have assumed that it would have been in the interest of justice, for such evidence to be proofed, i dont know.

 

You tell us.

 

You were the one who wanted to appeal.

[BazzaS]

It has to be under Article 6, (a.k.a "the magic gateway", under which all applications / appeals must be granted irrespective of supporting rationale) of course!

Sadly, though the court might want a teeny-weeny bit more detail ......

So throw in "abuse of process".

 

Where it gets tricky is actually identifying for the court the actual abuse of process, rather than "I lost, so it must be unfair / an abuse of process".

 

 

And on what grounds?

 

Not having seen the applicants and respondents witness statements in support of / against the application for strike out (and not knowing if they were filed and served within the timescale set by the court!) makes it harder to identify any possible abuse, too..... So how does the OP expect CAG'ers to formulate his appeal?

 

Not having asked verbally for permission to appeal, I take it that you also made no mention of a transcript request?

[callum1999]

It has to be under Article 6, (a.k.a "the magic gateway", under which all applications / appeals must be granted irrespective of supporting rationale) of course!

Sadly, though the court might want a teeny-weeny bit more detail ......

So throw in "abuse of process".

 

Where it gets tricky is actually identifying for the court the actual abuse of process, rather than "I lost, so it must be unfair / an abuse of process".

 

 

 

 

Not having seen the applicants and respondents witness statements in support of / against the application for strike out (and not knowing if they were filed and served within the timescale set by the court!) makes it harder to identify any possible abuse, too..... So how does the OP expect CAG'ers to formulate his appeal?

 

Not having asked verbally for permission to appeal, I take it that you also made no mention of a transcript request?

 

Funny how none of this about verbally asking for an appeal and requesting the transcript was relayed before the hearing by the experts on here, so i think i will pass on BazzasS idea as to formulate an appeal, its already in process.

 

Still no sign of the contract:wink:,

[Ganymede]

I think you grossly underestimate how easy it is to be granted an appeal. There are very strict criteria and you must seek the Courts permission either verbally at the end of the hearing tomorrow, or in writing within 14 days by completing the appropriate forms etc.

 

Ahem...

[BazzaS]

Funny how none of this about verbally asking for an appeal and requesting the transcript was relayed before the hearing by the experts on here

 

I beg to differ (and you should look back on this thread!

 

There are very strict criteria and you must seek the Courts permission either verbally at the end of the hearing tomorrow, or in writing within 14 days by completing the appropriate forms etc.

 

Posted 08.57 17/8/16by GM about verbally asking to appeal at the hearing.

 

And at 08.03 17/8/16

 

And (given the OP's statement of their financial position) : what about transcript costs?.

They may be able to use fee exemption for the court fees, but I'm not aware of an exemption for transcript costs .....

 

Which I updated at 08.15 to say about transcript fee exemption / form EX105

 

So, you were advised about appealing verbally at the hearing,and the matter of transcripts was raised.

 

If you want to ignore out of hand / dismiss the advice offered to you, which you have done repeatedly : you can't really then complain that it wasn't "spoon fed" to you to your liking......

[BazzaS]

Still no sign of the contract:wink:,

 

Today (18/8/16) at 10:40 (regarding disclsoure) :

You are mixing your civil (CPR) and criminal (allegations of perversion of the course of justice) law again.

Focus on today's hearing. If your PofC is struck out (and permission to amend the PofC not given) you'll have no civil case ongoing, and CPR 31 will no longer be relevant while your case is struck out.

 

Whilst your case is struck out, you can't use the CPR / "rules of disclosure" to obtain documents, as there is no ongoing case .....

You shouldn't be surprised there is no sign of the contract : do you think they were still (if they ever were!) under an obligation to the court to provide you with it?.

[callum1999]

Today (18/8/16) at 10:40 (regarding disclsoure) :

 

 

Whilst your case is struck out, you can't use the CPR / "rules of disclosure" to obtain documents, as there is no ongoing case .....

You shouldn't be surprised there is no sign of the contract : do you think they were still (if they ever were!) under an obligation to the court to provide you with it?.

 

Just as well i got the application in before the claim was struck out, a master stroke:lol:

 

Icing on the cake.

 

Todays case and the pleadings relied upon to secure a judgement, nothing under the Civil Procedures Rules nor any obligation owed (your quote) as to provide, will have any influence on the fact that todays hearing, added with the cheeky order obtained this morning, now proves beyond any reasonable doubt that in order to secure the case that has now "been struck out" has and was based on the solicitor, his solicitor and a number of other people (solicitor for the council) PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, or in a nutshell, telling porkies about the funding that initiated the contract, that never was.

 

Hook line and sinker, and with minimal bate, laid, now quote what CPR covers the above, not just an abuse of process, a complete abuse of natural justice, criminals:sad:, thoughts:shock::roll:

[Ganymede]

My thought is you lost your case as your claim was struck out.

 

Unless you have good, legal grounds for appeal then it's over and you have a £9k debt to pay.

[callum1999]

My thought is you lost your case as your claim was struck out.

 

Unless you have good, legal grounds for appeal then it's over and you have a £9k debt to pay.

 

The claim was struck out based on evidence, which has now been disclosed and pleaded, that evidence was false, in particular the funding needed for a legitimate contract that has now been pleaded, to be in place, evidently, that was not the case.

 

As for the costs, just how were they incurred, or Ordered, but for PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE, they could not have possibly been incurred.......

 

Over to you BazzaS, oops, i mean GM, LOL.

[callum1999]

Today (18/8/16) at 10:40 (regarding disclsoure) :

 

 

Whilst your case is struck out, you can't use the CPR / "rules of disclosure" to obtain documents, as there is no ongoing case .....

You shouldn't be surprised there is no sign of the contract : do you think they were still (if they ever were!) under an obligation to the court to provide you with it?.

 

Yes to the first paragraph

 

No to the second paragraph, however post hearing yday, such obligation cannot and will not be protected under mere Civil law, lets move onto the next level, CRIMINAL LAW.

[BazzaS]

Yes to the first paragraph

 

No to the second paragraph, however post hearing yday, such obligation cannot and will not be protected under mere Civil law, lets move onto the next level, CRIMINAL LAW.

 

They won't have an obligation to provide documents to YOU under criminal law, either .........

Agencies such as the police can request documents as part of an investigation, or can obtain a search warrant for evidence (but will need to be compliant with PACE) ; YOU can't do so under criminal law.

 

As for the "civil" equivalent of the "criminal" search warrant : "search orders" (what used to be known as "Anton Piller" orders) do exist.

However when your civil case ceased, so did the possibility of you using CPR 25 to obtain one - it died with your civil case ......

If you haven't got a hope of using CPR 31 / disclosure, you've got even less chance of getting a search order under CPR 25 from the High Court, for a case that has been struck out.

 

So, remind us ; how do you plan to proceed?

 

What is "the next level"; if you've already reported it to the police, is the"next level" just making the same accusations agIn?

[*RainbowTears*]

I can't offer any advice as this is way out of my league.

 

But I do want to say.

 

Well done Bazza & GM, for in my opinion going above & beyond in helping Callum.

 

I would want you both in my corner!!

[honeybee13]

I can't offer any advice as this is way out of my league.

 

But I do want to say.

 

Well done Bazza & GM, for in my opinion going above & beyond in helping Callum.

 

I would want you both in my corner!!

 

I second that, Rainbow. I have to say that if someone spoke to me the way Callum has to BazzaS and Ganymede sometimes, I would have stopped helping. It says a lot about them that they kept trying.

 

Well done, guys,

 

HB

[BazzaS]

I second that, Rainbow. I have to say that if someone spoke to me the way Callum has to BazzaS and Ganymede sometimes, I would have stopped helping. It says a lot about them that they kept trying.

 

Well done, guys,

 

HB

 

Why carry on helping? Stubbornness / the hope the OP wakes up and reviews the information they have been given rather than arguing with it as a default response.

 

But that isn't all.

It may be Callum's thread, but it isn't just about Callum.

Others may (in the future) find the thread from a search, and find the advice offered useful. It may not be tailored exactly to their scenario but it can (at least) be a useful starting point (and to some extent reads as a manual of "how not to do it unless you want to doom your case from the start")

 

Additionally, it is only advice. The OP doesn't have to take it. They then accept the consequences of not taking it.

For others reviewing this : if you are given consistent advice from a number of posters who are backing up their advice with the rationale / rules / practice directions / case law to support their advice, exlplaining the rationale why you aren't going to follow the advice is useful.

If you have a good rationale, new, more focused advice can be offered.

If you have a poor rationale : others (later) can see where you have gone wrong and avoid the same mistake(s)

 

Plus : it is the first time I've been likened to being part of Chas & Dave!

[honeybee13]

I'm sure you're an excellent musician, Bazza, just like the duo above.

 

HB

[callum1999]

Brilliant, just a quick scout through the morning posts, and all the congratulating back slapping and how right they were, is comedy gold, its certainly made my day.

 

WARNING!!!!! If anyone stumbles across or knows the whereabouts of of the the invisible contract that i recently had with my solicitor, do not approach or try to restrain it, the chances are you have just have experience one of god's miracles.

 

On a serious note, if you do discover, please take it to your nearest police station:-D:-D:-D

[callum1999]

I second that, Rainbow. I have to say that if someone spoke to me the way Callum has to BazzaS and Ganymede sometimes, I would have stopped helping. It says a lot about them that they kept trying.

 

Well done, guys,

 

HB

 

With the greatest respect, i think you have got your Callum and BazzS mixed up in your post, it should read the complete reverse, just an observation...

[BazzaS]

I'm sure you're an excellent musician, Bazza, just like the duo above.

 

HB

 

Sadly not!.

I've never claimed musical ability: I did try (when younger!) as I was told "you'll never know unless you try", but the grimaces on the tutor's face said it all.

 

I have a few areas of skill, knowledge and expertise.

Music isn't one of them!

[callum1999]

They won't have an obligation to provide documents to YOU under criminal law, either .........

Agencies such as the police can request documents as part of an investigation, or can obtain a search warrant for evidence (but will need to be compliant with PACE) ; YOU can't do so under criminal law.

 

As for the "civil" equivalent of the "criminal" search warrant : "search orders" (what used to be known as "Anton Piller" orders) do exist.

However when your civil case ceased, so did the possibility of you using CPR 25 to obtain one - it died with your civil case ......

If you haven't got a hope of using CPR 31 / disclosure, you've got even less chance of getting a search order under CPR 25 from the High Court, for a case that has been struck out.

 

So, remind us ; how do you plan to proceed?

 

What is "the next level"; if you've already reported it to the police, is the"next level" just making the same accusations agIn?

 

Oh i think you find they will be obliged to provide documents, maybe not to me, but still that is not entirely correct at this stage such doctored, i mean document would now be subject to a criminal prosecution, and any compliance with PACE, would be merely, a standard procedure giving the seriousness of offences, which as of yesterday would include perverting the course of justice, add to that fraud and add defrauding the public, the CPR that you quote are now irrelevant, in any event.

 

When did i report my solicitor and his associates for perverting the course of justice???? not the same accusation at all.

 

As for my case, still very much alive and kicking, what makes you think its dead... far from.

[callum1999]

Sadly not!.

I've never claimed musical ability: I did try (when younger!) as I was told "you'll never know unless you try", but the grimaces on the tutor's face said it all.

 

I have a few areas of skill, knowledge and expertise.

Music isn't one of them!

 

Stop putting yourself down Barry:-D:-D:-D

 

Your areas of skill, knowledge and expertise, far outweigh any negatives that you have experienced in life.

[AndyOrch]

Lets not get personal or I will close this thread....again.

 

Andy

[BazzaS]

With the greatest respect, i think you have got your Callum and BazzS mixed up in your post, it should read the complete reverse, just an observation...

 

So, bearing in mind how I have spoken to you, you'll stop helping?.

 

Too true. You certainly haven't helped people to give you better advice by your refusal to answer (relevant) questions, and you certainly haven't seemed to help yourself overall.

That is 2 claims (PI against the council, the negligence claim against the solicitor) you've had struck out now.

 

You might (at the start of the process) have had a faint possibility of a successful claim against the solicitor, if carefully pleaded and case undertaken with care, whilst following the CPR. It's difficult to be certain though, with the rambling irrelevancies you reply with, and your presentation of defeat as some sort of victory.

 

Yes you were right in your prediction the case was going to be struck out. I'm just not sure being self-celebratory about it shows insight: due to the way you have presented yourself in the thread, it was the likely result (of a self-fulfilling prophesy!).

 

You might (for example) have sought disclosure of the contract / retainer details (that you apparently) so desperately seek under CPR 31.16 before you started proceeding - but you instead jumped in with a shambolic PofC, which got struck out.

 

As for:

Just as well i got the application in before the claim was struck out, a master stroke:lol:

 

I'm not sure how making an application that wasn't ruled on, and won't be ruled on as the case was struck out counts as a "master stroke" - but that will probably be just another area we disagree on,