Solicitor/negligence claim:

[BazzaS]

 

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

 

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

 

11th July 2016

 

Did you apply for a CMH by 8th August? (Since you haven't mentioned having done so........)

[callum1999]

Did you apply for a CMH by 8th August? (Since you haven't mentioned having done so........)

 

Yes i applied for CMH, the CT denied this as well, stating the Defendants application to strike out had been listed.

[callum1999]

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.

 

Any advice on the application to set-aside the hearing that ultimately leading to the case being struck out would be appreciated.....

 

Why was another application ignored by the Court?

[BazzaS]

Any advice on the application to set-aside the hearing that ultimately leading to the case being struck out would be appreciated.....

 

Why was another application ignored by the Court?

 

I can guess, but it'd only be a guess.

 

You might consider supplying the documents the court considered : so people don't have to guess.

The applications / responses from both sides, and any witness statements.

 

The PofC (unless the version you posted was complete), and the Defence (since we've only seen up to para 15 so far)!

You've been asked for these before : yet you expect advice without supplying them!

[callum1999]

I can guess, but it'd only be a guess.

 

You might consider supplying the documents the court considered : so people don't have to guess.

The applications / responses from both sides, and any witness statements.

 

The PofC (unless the version you posted was complete), and the Defence (since we've only seen up to para 15 so far)!

You've been asked for these before : yet you expect advice without supplying them!

 

As soon as the CT made the order that allowed the other-side their application, to grant the other-side the strike out application, i made the appropriate order (within 7days) to have the CT order set-aside.

 

It would also appear the rules on striking out a claim when one party is unrepresented, the rules on evidence, remember the Notice to Admit Facts, should have in any event been considered CPR 3.1 and the relevant paragraphs covers this.

[callum1999]

As soon as the CT made the order that allowed the other-side their application, to grant the other-side the strike out application, i made the appropriate order (within 7days) to have the CT order set-aside.

 

It would also appear the rules on striking out a claim when one party is unrepresented, the rules on evidence, remember the Notice to Admit Facts, should have in any event been considered CPR 3.1 and the relevant paragraphs covers this.

 

The other-side were made aware of my application, as were the courts, email correspondence shows this, as well.

[callum1999]

The other-side were made aware of my application, as were the courts, email correspondence shows this, as well.

 

So the defendants were aware of my application to to have their order made on the courts own initiative set-aside, add to that, their continued denial as to produce evidence, which any unrepresented party would have legal entitlement too, but continued to proceed.

[callum1999]

So the defendants were aware of my application to to have their order made on the courts own initiative set-aside, add to that, their continued denial as to produce evidence, which any unrepresented party would have legal entitlement too, but continued to proceed.

 

The application and subsequent judgement was achieved, without consideration for any CPR that me the Claimant could rely upon, which would have (a) stopped the strike out hearing (b) judgement made as a result of that hearing © and evidence that would undermined a strike out application, CPR 32.18

[BazzaS]

As soon as the CT made the order that allowed the other-side their application, to grant the other-side the strike out application, i made the appropriate order (within 7days) to have the CT order set-aside.

 

What? The D was allowed the strike out on 18th August.

You applied before that to OPPOSE their application / have their application dismissed, not to have it SET ASIDE.

 

You've been told this, but continued to use the wrong terminology

 

You're getting. I your terminologies mixed up. You don't ask to "set aside" the Defendant's application as it's not been heard yet so there is nothing to set aside. You want the Defendant's application to be dismissed.

 

 

It would also appear the rules on striking out a claim when one party is unrepresented, the rules on evidence, remember the Notice to Admit Facts, should have in any event been considered CPR 3.1 and the relevant paragraphs covers this.

 

Again : you've had it explained why the court isn't interested in the Notice to Admit facts (it may have become relevant later, but only when costs were being considered if the D had lost!)

 

We still haven't seen the documents that would allow a more certain response, but this highlights why I think you lost;

1) you don't supply relevant info requested to allow you to be helped (eg the applications, responses & witness statements)

2) you don't listen to advice (eg the phraseology : it wasn't a strike out you wanted but dismissal of their application, and even "just use a solicitor, via a CFA")

3) you argue the same points over & over (like the Notice to Admit Facts), when told to move on : so you waste time & lose focus

4) the lack of focus shows in your applications (you asked for multitrack, they gave you multitrack), you made multiple applications, your PofC was poor. The other side made one application : but they made it count!

5) you "dress things up" with quoting the CPR but you are either too vague (eg citing CPR 3.1 above without highlighting the relevant subsection) OR misapply it (eg citing "CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred") when all that resulted from that was that it obscured from the court that you thought you were stating you wanted the high court to hear you claim.

 

None of these are grounds for you to appeal.

[BazzaS]

The application and subsequent judgement was achieved, without consideration for any CPR that me the Claimant could rely upon, which would have (a) stopped the strike out hearing (b) judgement made as a result of that hearing © and evidence that would undermined a strike out application, CPR 32.18

 

Case in point.

Their lack of response to a notice to admit facts can't be used as a weapon against them until:

a) they have lost if they lost (they didn't!), or you lost on some points but won on others, and

b) costs are being considered, where their failure to respond added to the costs unnecessarily.

 

You've quoted CPR 32.18. You've misunderstood it.

It's been explained to you

You ignore the explanation and continue to quote it, misapplying it.

[callum1999]

What? The D was allowed the strike out on 18th August.

You applied before that to OPPOSE their application / have their application dismissed, not to have it SET ASIDE.

 

You've been told this, but continued to use the wrong terminology

 

 

 

 

 

 

Again : you've had it explained why the court isn't interested in the Notice to Admit facts (it may have become relevant later, but only when costs were being considered if the D had lost!)

 

We still haven't seen the documents that would allow a more certain response, but this highlights why I think you lost;

1) you don't supply relevant info requested to allow you to be helped (eg the applications, responses & witness statements)

2) you don't listen to advice (eg the phraseology : it wasn't a strike out you wanted but dismissal of their application, and even "just use a solicitor, via a CFA")

3) you argue the same points over & over (like the Notice to Admit Facts), when told to move on : so you waste time & lose focus

4) the lack of focus shows in your applications (you asked for multitrack, they gave you multitrack), you made multiple applications, your PofC was poor. The other side made one application : but they made it count!

5) you "dress things up" with quoting the CPR but you are either too vague (eg citing CPR 3.1 above without highlighting the relevant subsection) OR misapply it (eg citing "CPR 11 4 (a) (b) 5 (a) (b) as for jurisdiction, time barred") when all that resulted from that was that it obscured from the court that you thought you were stating you wanted the high court to hear you claim.

 

None of these are grounds for you to appeal.

 

I had the right to rely upon the CPR, if the CC and the other-side want to ignore them rights, in order to obtain (a) hearing to strike out (b) judgement, which is now evidently premature, that was the risk that they were prepared to take.

 

Its done now, and the evidence demonstrates this quite clearly now.

 

As for the notice to admit facts, remembering that i was unrepresented they were obliged to produce because of that very fact, not that it makes any difference, it just adds to the Claimant being denied the same rights used by the other-side, prematurely used in this instance.

 

In a nutshell, you cannot supersede applications made by the other party as a means of obtaining a judgment, as was the case, and regardless of what court considered the application.

 

Very strong grounds for appeal, not to mention any judicial review, based on the Orders and applications completely ignored.

[BazzaS]

I had the right to rely upon the CPR, if the CC and the other-side want to ignore them rights, in order to obtain (a) hearing to strike out (b) judgement, which is now evidently premature, that was the risk that they were prepared to take.

 

Its done now, and the evidence demonstrates this quite clearly now.

 

As for the notice to admit facts, remembering that i was unrepresented they were obliged to produce because of that very fact, not that it makes any difference, it just adds to the Claimant being denied the same rights used by the other-side, prematurely used in this instance.

 

In a nutshell, you cannot supersede applications made by the other party as a means of obtaining a judgment, as was the case, and regardless of what court considered the application.

 

Very strong grounds for appeal, not to mention any judicial review, based on the Orders and applications completely ignored.

 

1) how are you planning on showing you were "completely ignored", rather than "considered and not agreed with".

2) are you planning to appeal, planning a judicial review application, or both?

[honeybee13]

Maybe now is the time to stop the post mortem on the hearing and move on to Callum's appeal which is due in under two weeks now?

 

HB

[BazzaS]

Maybe now is the time to stop the post mortem on the hearing and move on to Callum's appeal which is due in under two weeks now?

 

HB

 

1) how are you planning on showing you were "completely ignored", rather than "considered and not agreed with".

2) are you planning to appeal, planning a judicial review application, or both?

 

Those are relevant to an appeal.

 

Focusing on what is relevant, and giving the rationale IN DETAIL, is relevant to an appeal.

 

The OP answering relevant questions to allow focused advice : relevant to an appeal.

[Ganymede]

As soon as the CT made the order that allowed the other-side their application, to grant the other-side the strike out application, i made the appropriate order (within 7days) to have the CT order set-aside.

 

 

Ok, now I understand what you're talking about.

 

You tried to set aside the Order listing the Defendant's application.

 

No wonder it was ignored as it was a wholly inappropriate application and not the correct procedure to follow and certainly not even close for grounds to appeal.

[BazzaS]

Ok, now I understand what you're talking about.

 

You tried to set aside the Order listing the Defendant's application.

 

Gm, thanks for spotting this / working it out. It was such a bizarre way of proceeding by the OP it hadn't occurred to me that that might be what they had done.

 

 

No wonder it was ignored as it was a wholly inappropriate application and not the correct procedure to follow and certainly not even close for grounds to appeal.

 

Agreed, but the OP might seize on "ignored" to decide it was "completely ignored" and not given due process..

So, I'd suggest : "looked at to start being considered, but then immediately dismissed as inappropriate"?

 

The same conclusion : insufficient grounds to appeal, for that point.

[Ganymede]

The Order was merely notifying the Parties of the date for the application.

 

There's the standard paragraph about it being made by the Court without notice and having 7 days to set aside etc etc but that's not relevant here.

 

The Defendant made an application and paid the fee so was entitled to have it heard. If the application was without merit then it would have been dismissed.

 

Callum can't set aside the notice of hearing to prevent the application being heard at all. He should have defended it better.

[callum1999]

The Order was merely notifying the Parties of the date for the application.

 

There's the standard paragraph about it being made by the Court without notice and having 7 days to set aside etc etc but that's not relevant here.

 

The Defendant made an application and paid the fee so was entitled to have it heard. If the application was without merit then it would have been dismissed.

 

Callum can't set aside the notice of hearing to prevent the application being heard at all. He should have defended it better.

 

Callum can set-aside the notice of hearing, once that process was was correctly followed, Callum would have been in a far stronger case to defend it, hence why Callum part used that process.

 

Callum was within his rights as to rely on evidence as to oppose any application to have his claim thrown out, this is further supported that because Callum was unrepresented, the rules on him relying on evidence in an application to have a claim struck out, as was the case, differ from that, if he was legally represented.

 

Callum like the other-side had the right to rely on applications, because he is not legally qualified is most not an avenue for the other-side, the Courts and the experts to merely push under the carpet, because it will not hold.

[Ganymede]

You could have either defended the application better at the hearing or made a cross application to strike out their application/have it dismissed.

 

What you cannot do is try to prevent their application hearing going ahead by applying to set aside the Notice of Hearing. That is all it is, a simple notice to both Parties as to when the application will heard and not something to set aside.

 

You have been confused by the standard paragraph added at the end of the Order which has no meaning here.

[SuperVillain]

So what was at Court on Thursday was it the hearing for the application to set aside the Notice of Hearing, or the Defendant application to strike out the Claim?

 

Presumably it was the latter...

 

Either way, I would think long and hard about an appeal when you're struggling to explain here, precisely what happened at the hearing, on what grounds you will appeal the Order made and why there has been an error by the Judge, either legally, factually or procedurally -

 

"In a nutshell, you cannot supersede applications made by the other party as a means of obtaining a judgment, as was the case, and regardless of what court considered the application. Very strong grounds for appeal, not to mention any judicial review, based on the Orders and applications completely ignored." - I fear that won't cut it...

 

Bear in mind you have a £9k cost order against you already. This has potential to increase if your appeal is unsuccessful, therefore the reasoning behind the appeal must be clear in your mind before you proceed because it is a significant risk...

[callum1999]

The Order was merely notifying the Parties of the date for the application.

 

There's the standard paragraph about it being made by the Court without notice and having 7 days to set aside etc etc but that's not relevant here.

 

The Defendant made an application and paid the fee so was entitled to have it heard. If the application was without merit then it would have been dismissed.

 

Callum can't set aside the notice of hearing to prevent the application being heard at all. He should have defended it better.

 

Of course it is relevent, but for the order being ignored by both the defendants and the courts, the application to strike out could not have been applied for, until that application was considered, by the court.

[callum1999]

So what was at Court on Thursday was it the hearing for the application to set aside the Notice of Hearing, or the Defendant application to strike out the Claim?

 

Presumably it was the latter...

 

Either way, I would think long and hard about an appeal when you're struggling to explain here, precisely what happened at the hearing, on what grounds you will appeal the Order made and why there has been an error by the Judge, either legally, factually or procedurally -

 

"In a nutshell, you cannot supersede applications made by the other party as a means of obtaining a judgment, as was the case, and regardless of what court considered the application. Very strong grounds for appeal, not to mention any judicial review, based on the Orders and applications completely ignored." - I fear that won't cut it...

 

Bear in mind you have a £9k cost order against you already. This has potential to increase if your appeal is unsuccessful, therefore the reasoning behind the appeal must be clear in your mind before you proceed because it is a significant risk...

 

Thanks for that SV,

 

You give some positive advice, and in particular, "you cannot supersede applications made by the other as a means of obtaining judgment" that in mind, what happened to my application to strike the defence out, no proof that it was dismissed, so we have another application order ignored, but the one that only matters is the one the other-side put in to request what i requested the same.

 

Can someone explain why the Court never considered my application to strike out the defence????? V odd

[Ganymede]

Thanks for that SV,

 

You give some positive advice, and in particular, "you cannot supersede applications made by the other as a means of obtaining judgment" that in mind, what happened to my application to strike the defence out, no proof that it was dismissed, so we have another application order ignored, but the one that only matters is the one the other-side put in to request what i requested the same.

 

Can someone explain why the Court never considered my application to strike out the defence????? V odd

 

Did we know you made an application to strike out the Defence? I don't recall you providing any details of this.

[Ganymede]

Of course it is relevent, but for the order being ignored by both the defendants and the courts, the application to strike out could not have been applied for, until that application was considered, by the court.

 

This is gobbledygook.

 

Either party can make any application they wish at any stage. It's for the Court to decide at the subsequent hearing if the application had any merit or should have been made in the first place.

 

You're attempt to set aside the Notice of Hearing notifying the Parties of the application hearing date was incorrect and pointless.

[Ganymede]

Sorry, predictive text.

 

I meant "your."