Solicitor/negligence claim:

[callum1999]

There were legitimate grounds to strike out the defence, but if the other-side and the Courts want to conceal that evidence needed to rely upon, there will never be legitimate grounds to appeal, that is not my thought.

[callum1999]

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.

 

Have sent form N161

 

Going to apply for transcript, next couple of days.

[callum1999]

Have sent form N161

 

Going to apply for transcript, next couple of days.

 

And on form N244, with remission application.

[callum1999]

If a party or a Court refuses to comply or order that a notice to admit facts is giving/provided, and they are relevant to say, a strike out application,, what are the rules on the non compliance of CPR32.18.

 

If there is no compulsory obligation as to comply with this rule, despite having a claim struck out, which more unlikely, than likely if those facts were considered, could someone explain why the otherside and the courts were not obliged to provide/order this evidence.

[Ganymede]

What did you put in your N244?!

[callum1999]

What did you put in your N244?!

 

Am i correct in thinking a request for the transcriptneeds to be completed on form EX107?

 

What should i have put in form N244?

[Ganymede]

If a party or a Court refuses to comply or order that a notice to admit facts is giving/provided, and they are relevant to say, a strike out application,, what are the rules on the non compliance of CPR32.18.

 

If there is no compulsory obligation as to comply with this rule, despite having a claim struck out, which more unlikely, than likely if those facts were considered, could someone explain why the otherside and the courts were not obliged to provide/order this evidence.

 

You have been told countless times that a Notice to Admit Facts is not relevant or enforceable when liability is denied. The denials are in the Defence.

[callum1999]

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.

 

As there has been some applications that the court have not received, prior notification that permission to appeal is now being sought will be sent, to remove any doubts and to ensure the application is considered, better to be safe, than sorry.

[callum1999]

You have been told countless times that a Notice to Admit Facts is not relevant or enforceable when liability is denied. The denials are in the Defence.

 

So let me get this right, if someone denies liability, CPR32.18 , which COULD SHOW they are liable, is not enforceable.

 

So at what stage of proceedings would CPR 32.18 be enforceable?, trial>

[Ganymede]

As there has been some applications that the court have not received, prior notification that permission to appeal is now being sought will be sent, to remove any doubts and to ensure the application is considered, better to be safe, than sorry.

 

You can, but it's pointless. All the Court will accept is the actual appeal application within the prescribed time limit.

 

If you don't send the appeal application, and only send a letter notifying the Court that at some point you intend to appeal, you will be out of time when you eventually send off your appeal application.

[Ganymede]

So let me get this right, if someone denies liability, CPR32.18 , which COULD SHOW they are liable, is not enforceable.

 

So at what stage of proceedings would CPR 32.18 be enforceable?, trial>

 

Correct. The Defence and the denies/admissions contained therein stand.

 

It has already been explained to you that a Notice to Admit Facts is only relevant when liability is admitted to narrow the issues.

 

Otherwise it will need to be argued at trial.

[SuperVillain]

So let me get this right, if someone denies liability, CPR32.18 , which COULD SHOW they are liable, is not enforceable.

 

So at what stage of proceedings would CPR 32.18 be enforceable?, trial>

 

Look at it this way. What if they had sent you a notice to admit facts which included for example, wanting you to admit that you never instructed them to take any action with regards to the PI Claim? You would not admit that I presume...

 

Therefore where they do not admit certain facts, those points become disputed facts which are to be established at a trial by reference to the oral evidence and/or documents.

[callum1999]

Look at it this way. What if they had sent you a notice to admit facts which included for example, wanting you to admit that you never instructed them to take any action with regards to the PI Claim? You would not admit that I presume...

 

Therefore where they do not admit certain facts, those points become disputed facts which are to be established at a trial by reference to the oral evidence and/or documents.

 

But in evidence they have not raised this as the reason.

 

In evidence they have claimed costs as the reason why they were not prepared to provide, now that leaves them a bit open, they were and in their opinion, minded to provide but relied on costs as the reason, quite comical when you consider that they sent a barrister from the other end of the country to make their application,odd that.

[Ganymede]

But in evidence they have not raised this as the reason.

 

In evidence they have claimed costs as the reason why they were not prepared to provide, now that leaves them a bit open, they were and in their opinion, minded to provide but relied on costs as the reason, quite comical when you consider that they sent a barrister from the other end of the country to make their application,odd that.

 

It doesn't matter. They are under no obligation to reply, regardless of the reasons.

[callum1999]

Look at it this way. What if they had sent you a notice to admit facts which included for example, wanting you to admit that you never instructed them to take any action with regards to the PI Claim? You would not admit that I presume...

 

Therefore where they do not admit certain facts, those points become disputed facts which are to be established at a trial by reference to the oral evidence and/or documents.

 

No i would not admit to a fact that was not true, but if i had been giving the option of "not admitting" to a fact, that is what i would do.

 

They were not just giving the option of admitting facts, they were also giving the option of not admitting facts, no-one has pushed them into a corner, they have had the option to say "we do not admit that we never had the relevent funding in place" as an example

[callum1999]

It doesn't matter. They are under no obligation to reply, regardless of the reasons.

 

But it does matter, whether they were obliged or not they gave their reasons, costs, and that reason has been giving to me and the Court for non compliance, and this has been accepted, and not only accepted, a reason why those facts were concealed.

[callum1999]

Correct. The Defence and the denies/admissions contained therein stand.

 

It has already been explained to you that a Notice to Admit Facts is only relevant when liability is admitted to narrow the issues.

 

Otherwise it will need to be argued at trial.

 

GM could you please put up a an example of CPR32.18 only being relevent as to comply with only if liability has been admitted by the party being requested to provide a Notice to Admit Facts.

 

I thought the part reason for any trial has to be based on not admitting liability, and the reason why the trial would be needed, as to establish liability.

[Ganymede]

No i would not admit to a fact that was not true, but if i had been giving the option of "not admitting" to a fact, that is what i would do.

 

They were not just giving the option of admitting facts, they were also giving the option of not admitting facts, no-one has pushed them into a corner, they have had the option to say "we do not admit that we never had the relevent funding in place" as an example

 

That is all in the Defence.

[Ganymede]

But it does matter, whether they were obliged or not they gave their reasons, costs, and that reason has been giving to me and the Court for non compliance, and this has been accepted, and not only accepted, a reason why those facts were concealed.

 

It's a waste of their time and a waste of costs answering to deny everything as they have already submitted their denials in the Defence.

 

They would be repeating themselves and it's a valid reason to not bother.

[Ganymede]

GM could you please put up a an example of CPR32.18 only being relevent as to comply with only if liability has been admitted by the party being requested to provide a Notice to Admit Facts.

 

I thought the part reason for any trial has to be based on not admitting liability, and the reason why the trial would be needed, as to establish liability.

 

This is not relevant to your appeal so just forget it.

 

You have been told about a Notice to Admit facts by me, Bazza, Steampowered and Supervillan. Liability was denied so the case would just proceed to trial had it not been struck out.

 

We're going round in circles with it when it is not relevant.

[callum1999]

If applications have not been considered, is this an abuse of process?

 

My argument is that i was unable to present evidence that could have opposed my claim being struck out.

 

Am i right in thinking it would have been in the interest of justice, for the Judge to have considered all the evidence, for and against the application.

[Ganymede]

If applications have not been considered, is this an abuse of process?

 

My argument is that i was unable to present evidence that could have opposed my claim being struck out.

 

Am i right in thinking it would have been in the interest of justice, for the Judge to have considered all the evidence, for and against the application.

 

What evidence would have prevented your strike out? Why did you not get this pre issue as it's your claim and the burden of proof is on you to prove your claim and have everything in order before issuing.

 

Can you tell us specifically which applications were ignored and why they were relevant?

[BazzaS]

This is not relevant to your appeal so just forget it.

 

You have been told about a Notice to Admit facts by me, Buzzard, Steampowered and Supervillan. Liability was denied so the case would just proceed to trial had it not been struck out.

 

We're going round in circles with it when it is not relevant.

 

 

 

Reviewing CPR 52, the OP is still facing a ticking clock, but 14 days is in CPR 52.5 (the respondent). Is it the case that the OP as applicant has 21 days (CPR 52.4) [unless a different time limit was set by the District Judge] ; though it remains that this is a limit likely to be strictly applied?

 

Does the OP risk a CRO if their appeal is found to be totally without merit? (Rule 52.10(6))

[honeybee13]

They're a duo trying to help you get out of this mess, Callum.

 

HB

[callum1999]

That is all in the Defence.

 

GM it was what was in the Defence, that the applications were being requested, to discredit the claims being made, because they were false and misleading.

 

I am not saying know one has the right to defend the claim, but if in that defence, some of the facts are misleading or would show negligence, that's it, the defence must be taking as all correct and proper.

 

I have made a claim, they have defended my claim, i want to have the same opportunity giving to them, to defend my claim, by providing evidence and facts to dismiss the defence that they have choosing to rely upon.

 

Surely it dont stop because a defence has been giving, if that were to be the case, everyone would be fabricating a defence which would lead to the case against them being struck out, on those principles.

 

It is and i would assume about striking a balance, however that balance has been well and truly been tipped in favour, not because of the facts, but because of how the system was played.

 

They thought this was going to be an issue one, it is not proving that way because ive been down this road before, its a game.. i know that, but they dont know that i do.