Solicitor/negligence claim:

[BazzaS]

Who is claiming victory, i have not suffered a loss at all, quite the reverse.

 

The other-side have now played all their cards, and took all those risks, this time, in court.

 

Again, you have mis-read, the barrister went the colours of the rainbow when he knew the application was to be considered, and not after it was consider, do keep up.

 

If you haven't suffered a loss, how would you describe having your case struck out?.

 

I got that you described the other side's barrister's face at time of hearing your application was to be considered, hence me asking about "a few moments later" '(when they heard the application was dismissed), and also later when your case was struck out.

Neither are cause for sadness or concern for the barrister as they were winning!

[BazzaS]

Let me ask you a question, requesting a case being moved because the two parties share the same post-code, i would call that a lottery, and most certainly not in the interest of justice.

 

Previously answered. It is one factor, for the costs reasons previously stated.

 

You don't know that this was the only reason considered by the court.

I've already suggested others that might have had an impact.

 

If you didn't argue your submission adequately: Tough!

It is an adversarial process ; if they were better at it than you - you should have listened to the advice, got a CFA, and let the solicitor who you claim told you you had a good case run it for you.

[callum1999]

Were the issues that complex though?

 

From what I read, the solicitors were instructed on a housing repair matter, you asked them to reserve your position to make a connected PI claim. Unclear whether or not they did this, but either way, the limitation period for the PI claim was missed hence your allegation of professional negligence. They are disputing they were negligent in not issuing the PI claim by saying they weren't instructed to do that.

 

Am I oversimplifying?

 

The fraud allegation was baffling tbh...

 

But they were instructed to do that, but they decided to deny that, like the council did with the disrepair for a number of years.

 

If they had admitted what they had done from the start, all the other matters including alleging fraud would not have surfaced.

 

They dug their heels in, and so have i.

 

They have had ample opportunity to show where the funding came from to represent me, if that funding was never there for a contract, which now seems to be the case, they should not have represented me because there was no motivation or desire to represent me on a standard a client would expect from a solicitor, and the most probable reason why the instructions were ignored.

 

They were entrusted to look after me and my family by Shelter, they acted the complete opposite, but were paid handsomely to do the complete opposite.

 

If if is ok for a solicitor or any other profession without a legitimate contract as to protect both parties, and this is accepted as being par for the course, those who accept this, have every right to accept this, but those who don't be criticised if they have a right to object, that is all i am doing.

[callum1999]

By the way if this is right, I would have been tempted (depending how out of time you were) to find solicitors prepared to issue the PI claim out of time and apply to exclude the limitation period under s33 Limitation Act. Easier to have the limitation argument at Court against the Council, rather than the professional negligence argument at Court against your solicitors/their insurers.

 

I know, hindsight is a wonderful thing...

 

I did SV, I got a solicitor and a barrister to go after the Council, but the terms of the agreement and the fact that the solicitor failed to reserve that right, ultimately let the Council off the hook, so to speak.

 

So the solicitor, not me, said that because of the solicitors actions i have lost any entitlement to claim from the Council, and pointed the finger at my previous solicitor as that reason (professional negligence)

 

It is not as if i have gone charging in without cause to suspect that solicitor acted negligently, both a solicitor and barrister and after considering the evidence were both adamant, that was the case.

 

Everyone else who have not had the same benefit to look at the evidence are right, but me and a solicitor and a barrister who have had the benefit of all the facts are all WRONG, work it out mate.

[Guest]

Just looking at the Draft Order for directions, which was agreed by the High Court, as proposed by the Defendants, for a less senior Court/Judge to consider, the claim.

 

Can someone please explain why my propose directions were not considered?, but the Defendants were accepted.

what were your, and their, draft directions in full. post them up, lets see.

 

as was posted before (by me as well), transfer can be done on consideration as per the rules/statute linked already posted.

plus yr claim value wasnt above the 'auto' threshold (if memory serves you posed then inflating it).

so, it seems, that the ct was perfectly entitled to transfer it given what was before it at the time. did you object to the transfer when it was ordered?

[callum1999]

Previously answered. It is one factor, for the costs reasons previously stated.

 

You don't know that this was the only reason considered by the court.

I've already suggested others that might have had an impact.

 

If you didn't argue your submission adequately: Tough!

It is an adversarial process ; if they were better at it than you - you should have listened to the advice, got a CFA, and let the solicitor who you claim told you you had a good case run it for you.

 

What are you going on about arguing submission, they were no better than me, if the judge wants to bury his head in the sand when told, a five year old would be capable of winning that application, representing them.

 

Its no mean achievement for a lemon being paid god knows, how much per hour when the judge and the court are doing the work for him, as was the case yesterday.

 

If you honestly believe that the order gained yesterday was based on evidence or how that evidence was presented, you are on a different planet my friend, and deep down you know how that decision was made, and it had nothing to do with what you are trying to preach, fact.

[callum1999]

what were your, and their, draft directions in full. post them up, lets see.

 

as was posted before (by me as well), transfer can be done on consideration as per the rules/statute linked already posted.

plus yr claim value wasnt above the 'auto' threshold (if memory serves you posed then inflating it).

so, it seems, that the ct was perfectly entitled to transfer it given what was before it at the time. did you object to the transfer when it was ordered?

 

OK i will put both proposed directions up, please give me an hour.

 

There is a witness statement also in support of the directions that were also sent.

 

Would it be easier for me to email all of this over???

[Guest]

OK i will put both proposed directions up, please give me an hour.

 

There is a witness statement also in support of the directions that were also sent.

 

Would it be easier for me to email all of this over???

see what site says

 

for the guys to help fully, you need to post up/answer q's fully rather then seemingly being defensive/vague etc. as others have posted, you potentially have the benefit of good experienced advice here. up to you.

 

and, re a poss appeal of the hearing (not trial). as the guys have asked/posted, what (do you believe) are your required (substantive and/or procedural) grounds for appealing. and, heed the timelines. keeping in mind any costs consequences.

[callum1999]

CLAIMANTS DRAFT ORDER FOR DIRECTIONS

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. ALLOCATION

 

1.1 THE CLAIM BE ALLOCATED TO MULTI-TRACK

 

2. COURT ASSIGNED TO DEAL WITH CASE

 

2.1 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred

 

3 NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS

 

3.1 THE DEFENDANTS DO PROVIDE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE ORDER THE NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS, AS SERVED

BY THE CLAIMANT UNDER CPR 32.18 DATED 3RD JUNE 2016

 

4 HEARING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE

 

4.1 A HEARING BE LISTED OR UNDER THE COURTS OWN INITIATIVE AS TO STRIKE OUT THE DEFENCE, PURSUANT

TO THE DEFENDANTS COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE DIRECTIONS WITH THE CLAIMANTS NOTICE TO

ADMIT FACTS, OF WHICH THE CLAIMANT FEELS ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE

COURT IN ANY EVENT.

 

SINGED AND DATED BY CLAIMANT / 22ND JUNE 2016.

 

That was what i sent to the High Court but never heard anything back, i will post the Defendants proposed direction up in a bit.

[BazzaS]

CLAIMANTS DRAFT ORDER FOR DIRECTIONS

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. ALLOCATION

 

1.1 THE CLAIM BE ALLOCATED TO MULTI-TRACK

 

2. COURT ASSIGNED TO DEAL WITH CASE

 

2.1 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred

 

That was what i sent to the High Court but never heard anything back, i will post the Defendants proposed direction up in a bit.

 

Pure genius.

 

In 1. you requested multi-track.

Multi-track is County Court : there is no "multi-track" in the High Court. So, you were asking for the County Court.

That may not be what you intended: but it is what you asked for!

 

In 2. you correctly point out that you the defendant can no longer claim the courts of England and Wales don't have jurisdiction to hear the claim (by your reference to "CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred")

That isn't the same as saying "I think the High Court should hear the claim" even if you think that was what you were asking for!

Then again, even if the court managed to work out what you really wanted, where does your submission argue the reasons why the court should follow your view? Is it in a witness statement?? (Since we've not yet seen these!)

 

So, let's see the defendants submission, and both parties witness statements ; but even if they didn't make any submission, the court could have decided to send it to the multi-track on your submission alone!

[BazzaS]

Multi-track cases MAY (not "will"!) be heard in the High Court.

To avoid the risk the claim was heard in the county court, why didn't you request:

"1. The claim be allocated to the High Court"?

 

Surely that was what you wanted, and should have asked for??

[BazzaS]

Pure genius.

 

In 1. you requested multi-track.

Multi-track is County Court : there is no "multi-track" in the High Court. So, you were asking for the County Court.

 

 

I could have phrased that better.

 

There is no need to say "multi-track" for a High Court case.

By saying "multi track" rather than "High Court" you weren't asking for the High Court per se, and without saying "High Court" you are asking for "County Court, multi-track"

[callum1999]

Pure genius.

 

In 1. you requested multi-track.

Multi-track is County Court : there is no "multi-track" in the High Court. So, you were asking for the County Court.

That may not be what you intended: but it is what you asked for!

 

In 2. you correctly point out that you the defendant can no longer claim the courts of England and Wales don't have jurisdiction to hear the claim (by your reference to "CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred")

That isn't the same as saying "I think the High Court should hear the claim" even if you think that was what you were asking for!

Then again, even if the court managed to work out what you really wanted, where does your submission argue the reasons why the court should follow your view? Is it in a witness statement?? (Since we've not yet seen these!)

 

So, let's see the defendants submission, and both parties witness statements ; but even if they didn't make any submission, the court could have decided to send it to the multi-track on your submission alone!

 

No lets deal with the Claimant's submission.

 

It was ignored, so if the Master was minded to put the case multi-track, why was my submission so wrong, was the Master QC so wrong to bracket the case under those proceedings, or is it yet another case of what you say goes, thoughts?

[BazzaS]

No lets deal with the Claimant's submission.

 

It was ignored, so if the Master was minded to put the case multi-track, why was my submission so wrong, was the Master QC so wrong to bracket the case under those proceedings, or is it yet another case of what you say goes, thoughts?

 

See previous.

Your submission wasn't ignored.

 

In paragraph 1 you asked for multi-track rather than High Court.

They gave you multitrack in the County Court.

 

You might have thought that in para 2 you were asking for the High Court.

You weren't : you were pointing out that the defendant could no longer challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

 

So, whilst you think you were asking for the High Court, you were actually asking for Multi-track, County Court.

Your submission wasn't ignored : it was given what it asked for. The problem is that you got what you asked for - just not what you thought you asked for, which has led you to wrongly believe your submission was ignored.

[callum1999]

See previous.

Your submission wasn't ignored.

 

In paragraph 1 you asked for multi-track rather than High Court.

They gave you multitrack in the County Court.

 

You might have thought that in para 2 you were asking for the High Court.

You weren't : you were pointing out that the defendant could no longer challenge the jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales.

 

So, whilst you think you were asking for the High Court, you were actually asking for Multi-track, County Court.

Your submission wasn't ignored : it was given what it asked for. The problem is that you got what you asked for - just not what you thought you asked for.

 

Of course it was ignored, if it was not ignored, tut tut, or was the Master QC wrong as to suggest the claim should be multi-track, more to the point was i wrong to advocate what was being ordered by the Master QC. who was wrong ? me, the High Court Judge, or you, you decide:lol:

[callum1999]

Of course it was ignored, if it was not ignored, tut tut, or was the Master QC wrong as to suggest the claim should be multi-track, more to the point was i wrong to advocate what was being ordered by the Master QC. who was wrong ? me, the High Court Judge, or you, you decide:lol:

 

You are funny, i will give you that:-D:-D

[BazzaS]

No lets deal with the Claimant's submission.

 

OK, then.

 

Where in your proposed directions do you think you requested the High Court?.

a) Para 1?

b) Para 2?

c) Para's 1 & 2?

d) Some other combination or individual paragraph? (if so, please state it clearly).

[*RainbowTears*]

Bazza, you sir have the patience of a saint!

 

I hold my hat off to you.

[BazzaS]

Bazza, you sir have the patience of a saint!

 

I hold my hat off to you.

 

It's OK, RT, I just like learning from

a) having the errors in my posts pointed out in great detail

b) with insightful legal analysis

c) backed up with references to statute, the CPR, and to case law.

 

(Can you let me know when that happens to me on this thread, from the OP, though!)

[Guest]

Bazza, you sir have the patience of a saint!

 

.

'patience' of a doctor

ganymede as well.

 

callum

it wld be good if you can post up your draft as well. and any statements (as has been asked). can then consider as a whole why you think that the court erred in transferring it to the cty, recalling s40 cty courts act/cpr (PD 29 etc)/courts and legal services act/the order etc, as posted before.

value - not high ct

in the high ct list - prof negligence? did you put that

multitrack - as has been said, cty court can deal with such

nature/complexity/importance... - what was before the ct at the time when deciding, you didnt specify why shld be high in yr draft?

etc

and, i asked before whether you objected at the time to the transfer. you didnt answer, so assume you didnt.

 

anyway, if you are thinking of appealing, then you need to look at any poss grounds for appealing the J's decision to strike out your claim.

 

ps, edited

[callum1999]

CLAIMANTS DRAFT ORDER FOR DIRECTIONS

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT

 

1. ALLOCATION

 

1.1 THE CLAIM BE ALLOCATED TO MULTI-TRACK

 

2. COURT ASSIGNED TO DEAL WITH CASE

 

2.1 HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE, QUEENS BENCH DIVISION, CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred

 

3 NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS

 

3.1 THE DEFENDANTS DO PROVIDE WITHIN 14 DAYS OF THE ORDER THE NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS, AS SERVED

BY THE CLAIMANT UNDER CPR 32.18 DATED 3RD JUNE 2016

 

4 HEARING ON APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT DEFENCE

 

4.1 A HEARING BE LISTED OR UNDER THE COURTS OWN INITIATIVE AS TO STRIKE OUT THE DEFENCE, PURSUANT

TO THE DEFENDANTS COMPLYING WITH PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE DIRECTIONS WITH THE CLAIMANTS NOTICE TO

ADMIT FACTS, OF WHICH THE CLAIMANT FEELS ARE OF SIGNIFICANCE AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE

COURT IN ANY EVENT.

 

SINGED AND DATED BY CLAIMANT / 22ND JUNE 2016.

 

That was what i sent to the High Court but never heard anything back, i will post the Defendants proposed direction up in a bit.

 

ORDER RECEIVED FROM HIGH COURT re

 

Upon Directions Questionnaires being received by parties and the Court file being referred to Master ? QC

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

1) The claim is to be transferred to the County Court sitting in ?(hometown) for case management and if necessary, trial

 

2) The Claimant is within 28 days to apply to the County Court in ?9hometown) of a case management hearing.

 

3) Permission to apply - such application is to be made to the County Court

 

11th July 2016

[callum1999]

ORDER RECEIVED FROM HIGH COURT re

 

Upon Directions Questionnaires being received by parties and the Court file being referred to Master ? QC

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

1) The claim is to be transferred to the County Court sitting in ?(hometown) for case management and if necessary, trial

 

2) The Claimant is within 28 days to apply to the County Court in ?hometown) of a case management hearing.

 

3) Permission to apply - such application is to be made to the County Court

 

11th July 2016

 

Fully complied with by the Claimant, but as with all other applications, the Court were only prepared to grant one, the Defendants application to strike out, would have assumed that the Courts and the Judges are obliged as to secure the ends of justice, just considering and thereafter adjudging and throwing the other parties case out on those facts, could be deemed an abuse of process which both parties, and not just one party,! were allowed to implement.

[callum1999]

It's OK, RT, I just like learning from

a) having the errors in my posts pointed out in great detail

b) with insightful legal analysis

c) backed up with references to statute, the CPR, and to case law.

 

(Can you let me know when that happens to me on this thread, from the OP, though!)

 

Will do..

[callum1999]

Fully complied with by the Claimant, but as with all other applications, the Court were only prepared to grant one, the Defendants application to strike out, would have assumed that the Courts and the Judges are obliged as to secure the ends of justice, just considering and thereafter adjudging and throwing the other parties case out on those facts, could be deemed an abuse of process which both parties, and not just one party,! were allowed to implement.

 

On the 25th July 2016 made application for order allowing strike out hearing granted by CT to defendants to be set-aside, again, ignored by the courts, another application and within the compliance of the rules that have been adopted, but evidently ignored by the defendant, but more importantly by the court.

[BazzaS]

ORDER RECEIVED FROM HIGH COURT re

 

Upon Directions Questionnaires being received by parties and the Court file being referred to Master ? QC

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

1) The claim is to be transferred to the County Court sitting in ?(hometown) for case management and if necessary, trial

 

2) The Claimant is within 28 days to apply to the County Court in ?9hometown) of a case management hearing.

 

3) Permission to apply - such application is to be made to the County Court

 

11th July 2016

 

That's the court's order in response to the proposed directions (+/- witness statement) from each side.

 

We are still missing your WS (if any), their WS (if any) and their proposed directions.

 

We still don't know which paragraphs of your proposed directions you think meant you were asking for it to be heard in the High Court.

 

We still don't know why you have concluded you were "ignored", rather than "the court considered both sets of submissions and decided bearing in mind both".