Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

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

 

This would have happened when i mentioned the Court claiming they had not received applications, i managed to get the name of the Court official who stated this.

 

When i asked if the applications could be missing because of the exemption fee application, she informed me that the they would deal with applications for fee admissions and there was no application/s or applications for fee admission within that court.

 

I expressed my concerns and mentioned that a number of applications were going missing and i was of the opinion that fee exemption applications were considered elsewhere, not sure.

 

In the end i started taking all court work down in person because it was allegedly not being received by the local CC....

[callum1999]

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.

 

So if the Court considered my application for the Order which allowed the other-side to strike my claim out, and my application to set-aside was successful, how on earth could judgement be entered before any decision to strike out the claim, could possibly have been made.

 

You cannot just strike a claim out and ignore all applications that would evidently show, the grounds to strike out would have be completely undermined but for the Court and the Defendants ignoring those applications.

 

Seems to me that because the other-side wanted one order and the court allowed that order, it matters not that the very same orders and others were not being considered, dont think so.

 

What you are technically saying is it as perfectly normal to strike someones case out, because the Court and the Defendants would ultimately decide what evidence should be relied upon, again the ends to secure justice, have been violated and on a number of occasions.

[SuperVillain]

On what basis were you seeking to strike out the Defence?

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03/pd_part03a - refer to Practice Direction 3A para 1.6. when you answer the above question i.e.

 

a) did you allege their Defence was a bare denial with no coherant facts, or;

b) that there were coherant facts but they did not amount in law to a defence to your claim

 

Which of those two was it?

 

My view is that if it's the lack of hearing for this application that you're relying on for your appeal (i.e. a procedural irregularity), then matter will turn on whether you had a prospect of success in the application.

 

Without seeing the Defence (and the Particulars of Claim which they were responding to), I would hazard a guess that it is highly unlikely that a Defence filed by a firm of solicitors would fall under either a or b above.

[BazzaS]

On what basis were you seeking to strike out the Defence?

 

http://www.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/civil/rules/part03/pd_part03a - refer to Practice Direction 3A para 1.6. when you answer the above question i.e.

 

a) did you allege their Defence was a bare denial with no coherant facts, or;

b) that there were coherant facts but they did not amount in law to a defence to your claim

 

Which of those two was it?

 

My view is that if it's the lack of hearing for this application that you're relying on for your appeal (i.e. a procedural irregularity), then matter will turn on whether you had a prospect of success in the application.

 

Without seeing the Defence (and the Particulars of Claim which they were responding to), I would hazard a guess that it is highly unlikely that a Defence filed by a firm of solicitors would fall under either a or b above.

 

I'm not disagreeing, and we only got to see:

a) The OP's unamended PofC, (post 104, 4th June) and

b) The first 14 paragraphs of the Defence (which described the OP's claim as inadequately particularised, but predominantly 3 allegations, and the 14 paragraphs we got to see dealt only with the first allegation. This was post 118, 7th June.

 

Yet, all of this is moot, as is whether the court should have struck out the Defence, as long as the OP's PofC (and thus claim) is struck out.

No PofC, no claim. No claim, irrelevant if there is a Defence or not.

It is only if the OP can successfully appeal the strike out of their claim that it would become relevant if the Defence should be struck out.

 

I've yet to see anything remotely suggesting grounds for an appeal that isn't:

a) Just plain wrong, or

b) So vaguely phrased as to pose no realistic prospect of being considered, or

both a) and b) combined!.

[BazzaS]

So if the Court considered my application for the Order which allowed the other-side to strike my claim out, and my application to set-aside was successful, how on earth could judgement be entered before any decision to strike out the claim, could possibly have been made.

 

Gobbledygook again.

You were wrong to try to get a set aside of the order granting the hearing of the Defendant's application.

You should have opposed the defendant's application (or, if you did oppose it, have opposed it more effectively)

 

We still haven't seen the details of their application, your objection and the supporting witness statements (if any).

 

Judgement could be entered as a result of the strike out of your PofC, and thus your claim. All the other applications become moot (strike out of Defence, anything about Notice to Admit Facts), as the claim is gone, so those other matters no longer need to be considered while the claim is struck out.

 

 

You cannot just strike a claim out and ignore all applications that would evidently show, the grounds to strike out would have be completely undermined but for the Court and the Defendants ignoring those applications.

 

"You cannot just strike a claim out and ignore all applications" : They can, (for the reasons which have already been explained, but follow again) and they have done so.

Judgement could be entered as a result of the strike out of your PofC, and thus your claim. All the other applications become moot (strike out of Defence, anything about Notice to Admit Facts), as the claim is gone, so those other matters no longer need to be considered while the claim is struck out.

 

Seems to me that because the other-side wanted one order and the court allowed that order, it matters not that the very same orders and others were not being considered, dont think so.

 

Let us guess what the response is...... ohh, its the same as to the two previous paragraphs.

Judgement could be entered as a result of the strike out of your PofC, and thus your claim. All the other applications become moot (strike out of Defence, anything about Notice to Admit Facts), as the claim is gone, so those other matters no longer need to be considered while the claim is struck out.

Once that one application striking out your claim is allowed, the claim is over. The other applications become nullities / void / irrelevant / not worthy of consideration.

 

What you are technically saying is it as perfectly normal to strike someones case out, because the Court and the Defendants would ultimately decide what evidence should be relied upon, again the ends to secure justice, have been violated and on a number of occasions.

 

Yes. it is perfectly normal, but not "because the Court and the Defendants would ultimately decide what evidence should be relied upon".

It is perfectly normal if they persuade the court your PofC should be struck out in their entirety, as then there is no claim in existence.

If there is no claim, it matters not what Defence there is (or if it should be struck out). It matters not if there was a Notice to admit facts.

It matters not what might have been considered in evidence.

Those things don't matter : because there is no claim, it has been struck out.

[SuperVillain]

Yet, all of this is moot, as is whether the court should have struck out the Defence, as long as the OP's PofC (and thus claim) is struck out.

No PofC, no claim. No claim, irrelevant if there is a Defence or not.

It is only if the OP can successfully appeal the strike out of their claim that it would become relevant if the Defence should be struck out.

 

Agreed, of course.

[SuperVillain]

I'm not disagreeing, and we only got to see:

a) The OP's unamended PofC, (post 104, 4th June) and

b) The first 14 paragraphs of the Defence (which described the OP's claim as inadequately particularised, but predominantly 3 allegations, and the 14 paragraphs we got to see dealt only with the first allegation. This was post 118, 7th June.

 

Would have been interesting to see what the rest of the Defence said, but paragraphs 11 and 12 were a significant hammer blow...

[callum1999]

This would have happened when i mentioned the Court claiming they had not received applications, i managed to get the name of the Court official who stated this.

 

When i asked if the applications could be missing because of the exemption fee application, she informed me that the they would deal with applications for fee admissions and there was no application/s or applications for fee admission within that court.

 

I expressed my concerns and mentioned that a number of applications were going missing and i was of the opinion that fee exemption applications were considered elsewhere, not sure.

 

In the end i started taking all court work down in person because it was allegedly not being received by the local CC....

 

As is now standard, no-one seems to explain or want to explain to any facts that remotely show the application/process was not correctly followed, by the Defendants and the CC.

 

If only one side are allowed to use the procedures, whilst the other cannot, or would not be allowed, as was the case, the outcome can only be one outcome.

 

It's a tactic that is often used by people who on their own are completely incapable of achieving this on their own, they look to others to bale them out, come unstuck this time, time will prove this, that i am sure of.

[Ganymede]

As is now standard, no-one seems to explain or want to explain to any facts that remotely show the application/process was not correctly followed, by the Defendants and the CC.

 

If only one side are allowed to use the procedures, whilst the other cannot, or would not be allowed, as was the case, the outcome can only be one outcome.

 

It's a tactic that is often used by people who on their own are completely incapable of achieving this on their own, they look to others to bale them out, come unstuck this time, time will prove this, that i am sure of.

 

Ok let's go through them one by one.

 

Firstly, did you complete the N244 form and send a fee remission form with each separate application?

 

Which ones went missing?

 

1) Application to strike out Defence?

2) Application to set aside the Notice of Hearing?

 

Any others? Did you apply to amend your PoC in the end or not?

 

I can't see that the Defendant has failed to follow the correct procedures. They made their application to strike out your claim which they are perfectly entitled to do. It's not their fault you failed to adequately object to it or oppose it correctly.

[callum1999]

Ok let's go through them one by one.

 

Firstly, did you complete the N244 form and send a fee remission form with each separate application?

 

Which ones went missing?

 

1) Application to strike out Defence?

2) Application to set aside the Notice of Hearing?

 

Any others? Did you apply to amend your PoC in the end or not?

 

I can't see that the Defendant has failed to follow the correct procedures. They made their application to strike out your claim which they are perfectly entitled to do. It's not their fault you failed to adequately object to it or oppose it correctly.

 

If the procedures have been breached, it is not my fault that the Defendants and the Court did not "adequately follow the applications" of both parties, as was the case, both were evidently aware, but both decided to ignore, it's not a problem, quite the reverse.

 

Modern technology will suffice and will ultimately prove only only side were able to able to rely on applications as a means of proving their case....

 

Not that it really matters, but just out of interest does the local CC deal with remission application's, or does this just add to a number of inconsistent facts that go hand in hand with the dodgy decision made last Thursday, i reckon it just adds.. thoughts.

[BazzaS]

.. thoughts.

 

My thoughts are that you are still repeating yourself, and still not answering relevant questions, yet you expect new / different answers?

[callum1999]

My thoughts are that you are still repeating yourself, and still not answering relevant questions, yet you expect new / different answers?

 

That is so reassuring, pot calling the kettle black, sprigs to mind.

 

How are application for remission of fees, normally processed, ?? any advice would be appreciated, as always.

[BazzaS]

That is so reassuring, pot calling the kettle black, sprigs to mind.

 

You are so right, as ever : our situations are so similar!

Except (of course) that you've had multiple people point out you aren't answering questions and you are repeating the same incorrect information while I've had people support that I'm repeating relevant points.

 

Our situations also differ in that I'm not facing a 9 day ticking clock to get an appeal in to the court, nor am I facing £9,000 in costs........

[Ganymede]

That is so reassuring, pot calling the kettle black, sprigs to mind.

 

How are application for remission of fees, normally processed, ?? any advice would be appreciated, as always.

 

Each local Court deals with their own fee remission applications.

[Ganymede]

If the procedures have been breached, it is not my fault that the Defendants and the Court did not "adequately follow the applications" of both parties, as was the case, both were evidently aware, but both decided to ignore, it's not a problem, quite the reverse.

 

Modern technology will suffice and will ultimately prove only only side were able to able to rely on applications as a means of proving their case....

 

Not that it really matters, but just out of interest does the local CC deal with remission application's, or does this just add to a number of inconsistent facts that go hand in hand with the dodgy decision made last Thursday, i reckon it just adds.. thoughts.

 

What procedures did the Defendant breach by making an application to strike out your PoC exactly?

[BazzaS]

......

it's not a problem, quite the reverse.

.......

i reckon it just adds.. thoughts.

 

Yup, "it's not a problem" ...... for the other side that your case has been struck out.

 

By "it just adds", do you mean it will add to the 9k costs bill you owe?.

I can't see how, as I can't see the grounds on which you'll have an appeal heard, so there shouldn't be more litigation costs for the other side that you end up being liable for.......

 

Don't forget to post up your appeal submission, so we can remain in awe of your advocacy .....

No need to be shy with it, as the other side would get to see a copy if your appeal was to be heard (and no harm done if they don't get to get sent a copy by the court ; when the court rejects permission to appeal or the appeal itself on the basis you have no grounds).

[callum1999]

If the court was minded and only showed a predominant motivation to consider one parties application but denies the other party those seem legal rights, this is an abuse of process.

 

No ifs, buts or maybe's, there lies the bare facts.

 

Had the other-side and had the Court ordered that they complied with the Notice to Admit Facts and based on the 42 admissions that i was entitled to rely upon, any application to strike out and based on the facts would have been laughed out of court.

 

They and the judge who jumped through hoops to give them an order, which incidentally is not worth the paper that it will be writing on knew this, that's why both wanted the facts kept out of the litigation, the other-side as to the costs, of effectively showing the truth, the Court by claiming they never received yet another application, how very odd, still modern technology and the advances will show otherwise.

[callum1999]

You are so right, as ever : our situations are so similar!

Except (of course) that you've had multiple people point out you aren't answering questions and you are repeating the same incorrect information while I've had people support that I'm repeating relevant points.

 

Our situations also differ in that I'm not facing a 9 day ticking clock to get an appeal in to the court, nor am I facing £9,000 in costs........

 

No clock ticking here, quite the reverse.

 

Nor am i facing a 9k for dodgy costs awarded by a dodgy judge in a dodgy court, which incidental, the chambers were filthy and with half the ceiling missing..

[BazzaS]

No clock ticking here, quite the reverse.

 

Have you applied for permission to appeal / put your appeal in?

If not : how are you going to stop that clock (5 days down, 9 to go of 14) ticking?

 

Nor am i facing a 9k for dodgy costs awarded by a dodgy judge in a dodgy court, which incidental, the chambers were filthy and with half the ceiling missing..

 

You yourself said that a 9k costs order had been made against you.

Describing it, the judge and the court as "dodgy" won't make it go away.

I'm confident you won't say that to any of the judges (but if you are foolish enough to repeat it to them ...... "Better pack a toothbrush"!)

 

If you mention the "filthy" chambers and missing ceiling, expect to hear "you are so right, and the judiciary have to put up with such!. However, that makes no difference at all regarding the ruling or its attempted appeal".

 

You just can't focus on what matters, can you?

[Ganymede]

No clock ticking here, quite the reverse.

 

 

Yes there is.

 

There are VERY strict time limits to apply for permission to appeal/appeal.

 

Why do you think there is not?

[Ganymede]

Ok let's go through them one by one.

 

Firstly, did you complete the N244 form and send a fee remission form with each separate application?

 

Which ones went missing?

 

1) Application to strike out Defence?

2) Application to set aside the Notice of Hearing?

 

Any others? Did you apply to amend your PoC in the end or not?

 

I can't see that the Defendant has failed to follow the correct procedures. They made their application to strike out your claim which they are perfectly entitled to do. It's not their fault you failed to adequately object to it or oppose it correctly.

 

Callum, please can you full respond to this post so we can help you?

[callum1999]

Yes there is.

 

There are VERY strict time limits to apply for permission to appeal/appeal.

 

Why do you think there is not?

 

I have giving the Court notice of my appeal.

 

I know that there are limitations, i am just waiting to secure all the evidence that will show it was not in the interest of justice for the application to proceed.

[Ganymede]

I have giving the Court notice of my appeal.

 

I know that there are limitations, i am just waiting to secure all the evidence that will show it was not in the interest of justice for the application to proceed.

 

How have you given notice?

 

Which form did you send to Court for permission to appeal?

 

Have you applied for the transcript?

 

Please can you answer each of the above as it is very important.

[callum1999]

Callum, please can you full respond to this post so we can help you?

 

Yes all applications were completed on N244, and subsequent fee remission application with supportive documentation each time.

 

The directions all my proposed directions were overlooked, but the other sides considered, no opportunity to oppose or reason/s giving why one parties application took precedent over the other.

 

Made application to the HC and CC that the other-side to comply with CPR31.18, as those facts should have been considered not only at trial, but in any application, to strike out a claim.

 

Clearly i have been denied the most basic of orders as to prove my case, and in the event of any strike out application that the other-side were perfectly entitled to do, entitled, a bit one sided.

[SuperVillain]

I still don't see on what basis your application to strike out the Defence would have succeeded. There doesn't appear to be any legitimate grounds to strike out the Defence (although only part of the Defence is posted).