Solicitor/negligence claim:

[BazzaS]

So the most defining point and one on which an appeal could be relied upon, is that the case should have remained within the High Court and not transferred to the County Court.

 

There are now a number of factors that would support this.

 

The Defendants had no compelling evidence that (a) could show the value of the claim was suitable for fast track which was the reason for transfer, to the County Court.

 

What a load of nonsense, the Master and the High Court had already and on the balance of claim/defence bracketed the case under multi-track, so the other-side and their solicitor have dismissed such order to get it to fact track, and without one shred of evidence to suggest the claim was suitable for fast-track.

 

The case should have stayed where the claim was subsequently and correctly issued, and the excuse to (a) rely on the fast track, (b) in order for the local county court to deal with, which was to get the claim thrown out.

 

You are conflating the 2 distinct issues of:

a) choice of venue, and

b) decision to strike out your claim.

 

Had it remained in the High Court would likely have made no difference to the strike out.

 

Returning to "grounds for your upcoming appeal":

You could have appealed the choice of venue (though you needed to do so "promptly"). You didn't do so.

That will prevent you using that as a grounds of appeal against the strikeout as

a) they are different issues, and

b) you had an available remedy (apealling the decision on choice of venue), but didn't use it.

[callum1999]

You are conflating the 2 distinct issues of:

a) choice of venue, and

b) decision to strike out your claim.

 

Had it remained in the High Court would likely have made no difference to the strike out.

 

Returning to "grounds for your upcoming appeal":

You could have appealed the choice of venue (though you needed to do so "promptly"). You didn't do so.

That will prevent you using that as a grounds of appeal against the strikeout as

a) they are different issues, and

b) you had an available remedy (apealling the decision on choice of venue), but didn't use it.

 

The Claim was struck out on the fast track procedure, so (a) its not only the choice of venue, and

(b) any decision to strike out the claim n the grounds, circumstances and value of the claim should not have been adjudge by a District Judge in a County Court, as was the case.

 

And had it remained in the High Court it would have most certainly made a difference to the strike out, evidence and applications made to the County Court would not have been allowed to be ignored.

[Ganymede]

The Claim was struck out on the fast track procedure, so (a) its not only the choice of venue, and

(b) any decision to strike out the claim n the grounds, circumstances and value of the claim should not have been adjudge by a District Judge in a County Court, as was the case.

 

And had it remained in the High Court it would have most certainly made a difference to the strike out, evidence and applications made to the County Court would not have been allowed to be ignored.

 

No it wouldn't have made a difference. The procedure in the High Court and County Court to make an application to strike out a PoC are the same.

 

Your PoC was inadequate and showed no cause of action for a professional negligence claim so was struck out.

 

You did not apply to amend the PoC in time and your applications to set aside the Notice of Hearing and to enforce the Notice to Admit Facts were pointless and totally without merit.

[callum1999]

I'm sorry but letters from your previous solicitor/Barrister is not evidence a judge needs to consider. It's just the opinion of some lawyer and does not bind the Court in any way. The only opinion that matters is the Judges.

 

Same goes for what Shelter had to say.

 

Also, simply annexing these letters to a back of a witness statement would not have been sufficient in any event.

 

Giving that my previous solicitors had complied with the pre-action protocol procedures which resulted in proceedings being issued, as they were adamant the solicitor had acted negligently, to dismiss any involvement as being irrelevant, is complete tosh.

 

And pushing to one side what Shelter had to say, is again nonsense, so them telling the solicitor to seek a court injunction and the solicitors agreeing, as to take the claim on in the first instance on those provision but failing to act, again, demonstrated blatant negligence.

 

You cannot cherry pick parts of the evidence to suit you case, that is, unless you get some crooked eyed judge to give you a helping hand..

[Ganymede]

Giving that my previous solicitors had complied with the pre-action protocol procedures which resulted in proceedings being issued, as they were adamant the solicitor had acted negligently, to dismiss any involvement as being irrelevant, is complete tosh.

 

And pushing to one side what Shelter had to say, is again nonsense, so them telling the solicitor to seek a court injunction and the solicitors agreeing, as to take the claim on in the first instance on those provision but failing to act, again, demonstrated blatant negligence.

 

You cannot cherry pick parts of the evidence to suit you case, that is, unless you get some crooked eyed judge to give you a helping hand..

 

 

None of that is evidence that the solicitor was negligent. It is simply correspondence to you from your former solicitor giving his legal opinion on your case. It doesn't make any difference to what you are now seeking if your former solicitors complied with the pre-action protocol or not as it is meaningless to your current appeal of the strike out.

 

Your former solicitor could have been adamant and told you that the Defendant was negligent until he was blue in the face but this is not evidence that is admissible in Court to prove your claim.

 

Think about it, the Defendant's solicitors are also adamant that the Defendant is not liable and they could have loads of letters with their legal advice saying this but it wouldn't make any difference.

 

Shelter's opinion that an injunction should be applied for was eventually done wasn't it? albeit with a delay.

[callum1999]

No it wouldn't have made a difference. The procedure in the High Court and County Court to make an application to strike out a PoC are the same.

 

Your PoC was inadequate and showed no cause of action for a professional negligence claim so was struck out.

 

You did not apply to amend the PoC in time and your applications to set aside the Notice of Hearing and to enforce the Notice to Admit Facts were pointless and totally without merit.

 

Whilst the procedures to strike out a PoC are the same, they need to be adopted and within the rules of the Court, this was not a fast track claim that was suitable for the Court requested on the grounds that the other-side had adjudged were suited (for them) to consider such application..

 

My Particulars of claim and the very fact that on considering the pleadings Master / assigned the case multi-track (a) will show there was a cause of action for professional negligence which would (b) clearly show no grounds to strike out.

 

Its irrelevant now anyway, the wrong court and wrong judge considered and made that judgement to throw the case out, it was flawed and i will be claiming the legal costs because the other-side and in their haste made the application at that material time to the wrong Court and judge.

 

Is it no wonder they did not want the correct court to consider THEIR APPLICATION (The High Court) for the reasons giving, and add to that the Orders and evidence being ignored, they would not have got away with that had the right court and level of judge been correctly asked to adjudge the case, claim and any applications, which and by now we all know, was not the case.

[Ganymede]

Whilst the procedures to strike out a PoC are the same, they need to be adopted and within the rules of the Court, this was not a fast track claim that was suitable for the Court requested on the grounds that the other-side had adjudged were suited (for them) to consider such application..

 

My Particulars of claim and the very fact that on considering the pleadings Master / assigned the case multi-track (a) will show there was a cause of action for professional negligence which would (b) clearly show no grounds to strike out.

 

Its irrelevant now anyway, the wrong court and wrong judge considered and made that judgement to throw the case out, it was flawed and i will be claiming the legal costs because the other-side and in their haste made the application at that material time to the wrong Court and judge.

 

Is it no wonder they did not want the correct court to consider THEIR APPLICATION (The High Court) for the reasons giving, and add to that the Orders and evidence being ignored, they would not have got away with that had the right court and level of judge been correctly asked to adjudge the case, claim and any applications, which and by now we all know, was not the case.

 

The Defendant's application was made appropriately and within the "rules of the Court" as you put it. The case was in the Correct Court as the Directions were considered and then transferred in line with the Court's case management powers.

 

Please can you be very specific as to what evidence the Court ignored? And please don't say letters addressed to you from your former solicitor giving his opinion on your case as this is all it is, their opinion

 

The Defendant asked for Fast Track, the Court did not allow this and allocated your case to the Multi Track so why do you continue to persist with this point? The Defendant can ask for whatever track they want, the Court will make the final decision on what is appropriate.

 

Your PoC would not have been given much scrutiny by the Court at all so this is not evidence that you had a cause of action. It is for the Defendant to apply to strike out the PoC, the Court will not strike out a PoC of it's volition apart from in very, very rare circumstances.

 

I cannot see that a High Court judge would have done anything differently. You are claiming professional negligence in your PoC that the Defendant did not reserve a right to bring a PI claim for you which can be proven with actual evidence to be untrue as your PI claim had already bee struck out and in any event would have been statue barred by the time you signed up with the Defendant's firm.

[callum1999]

None of that is evidence that the solicitor was negligent. It is simply correspondence to you from your former solicitor giving his legal opinion on your case. It doesn't make any difference to what you are now seeking if your former solicitors complied with the pre-action protocol or not as it is meaningless to your current appeal of the strike out.

 

Your former solicitor could have been adamant and told you that the Defendant was negligent until he was blue in the face but this is not evidence that is admissible in Court to prove your claim.

 

Think about it, the Defendant's solicitors are also adamant that the Defendant is not liable and they could have loads of letters with their legal advice saying this but it wouldn't make any difference.

 

Shelter's opinion that an injunction should be applied for was eventually done wasn't it? albeit with a delay.

 

Yes it was, the evidence from my legal team and the reasons why they were negligent and willing to act on my behalf were detailed and giving to the solicitor whilst they were representing me.

 

They and in detail pointed out why the solicitor was negligent on a number of occasions, so to claim such evidence that would undermined not only the other-side case, but also any applications to strike a claim out, are not as you have deemed inadmissible in evidence, it should have been considered as evidence, as the compliance and the procedure needed for the evidence to be considered was followed correctly.

 

The DJ had no legal right to refuse evidence opposing an application that he should never have been near, in the first place.

 

He was there to consider the evidence, not consider what evidence he felt was relevent. Its all on tape.

[Ganymede]

Yes it was, the evidence from my legal team and the reasons why they were negligent and willing to act on my behalf were detailed and giving to the solicitor whilst they were representing me.

 

They and in detail pointed out why the solicitor was negligent on a number of occasions, so to claim such evidence that would undermined not only the other-side case, but also any applications to strike a claim out, are not as you have deemed inadmissible in evidence, it should have been considered as evidence, as the compliance and the procedure needed for the evidence to be considered was followed correctly.

 

The DJ had no legal right to refuse evidence opposing an application that he should never have been near, in the first place.

 

He was there to consider the evidence, not consider what evidence he felt was relevent. Its all on tape.

 

 

Again, that is not evidence it is simply the opinion of your solicitor putting your allegations of negligence to the Defendant. This is not evidence.

 

What other professional negligence claims are you making apart from the not reserving the right to bring a PI claim? What details did you former solicitor point out please?

 

The DJ's job is to consider the "evidence" and decide what is relevant and admissible and make a decision!

[callum1999]

The Defendant's application was made appropriately and within the "rules of the Court" as you put it. The case was in the Correct Court as the Directions were considered and then transferred in line with the Court's case management powers.

 

Please can you be very specific as to what evidence the Court ignored? And please don't say letters addressed to you from your former solicitor giving his opinion on your case as this is all it is, their opinion

 

The Defendant asked for Fast Track, the Court did not allow this and allocated your case to the Multi Track so why do you continue to persist with this point? The Defendant can ask for whatever track they want, the Court will make the final decision on what is appropriate.

 

Your PoC would not have been given much scrutiny by the Court at all so this is not evidence that you had a cause of action. It is for the Defendant to apply to strike out the PoC, the Court will not strike out a PoC of it's volition apart from in very, very rare circumstances.

 

I cannot see that a High Court judge would have done anything differently. You are claiming professional negligence in your PoC that the Defendant did not reserve a right to bring a PI claim for you which can be proven with actual evidence to be untrue as your PI claim had already bee struck out and in any event would have been statue barred by the time you signed up with the Defendant's firm.

 

No the Defendants application was not made appropriately and within the "rules of the court" the case, the circumstances and the value of the claim 25k+, was not suitable for the track they were requesting.

 

You and i know, such is the complex of cases for professional negligence would not be considered under the fast track procedure, this claim was no different.

 

Whilst the Court has the powers under case management to transfer a claim, that is not to say that it is the right decision, the bottom line is fundamentally clear, the case could and should never have been decided because the other-side alleged that in their opinion the case was not worth more than 25k so therefore the case not only be transferred but also the track previously allocated by a Master was also incorrect, yea ok.

[callum1999]

Again, that is not evidence it is simply the opinion of your solicitor putting your allegations of negligence to the Defendant. This is not evidence.

 

What other professional negligence claims are you making apart from the not reserving the right to bring a PI claim? What details did you former solicitor point out please?

 

The DJ's job is to consider the "evidence" and decide what is relevant and admissible and make a decision!

 

So all the evidence and allegations and those opinionated by the other-side solicitor, why was that considered?

[BazzaS]

Whilst the Court has the powers under case management to transfer a claim, that is not to say that it is the right decision, the bottom line is fundamentally clear, the case could and should never have been decided because the other-side alleged that in their opinion the case was not worth more than 25k so therefore the case not only be transferred but also the track previously allocated by a Master was also incorrect.

 

 

Let us (just to avoid confusing issues) say you are correct.

(You aren't, for the reasons GM has set out admirably, but let us just follow the track that 'you are right'........)

 

You could have appealed the choice of venue provided you did so promptly. You didn't.

This will prevent you using "wrong venue!" as a grounds of appeal.

How will you address this?

[Ganymede]

No the Defendants application was not made appropriately and within the "rules of the court" the case, the circumstances and the value of the claim 25k+, was not suitable for the track they were requesting.

 

You and i know, such is the complex of cases for professional negligence would not be considered under the fast track procedure, this claim was no different.

 

Whilst the Court has the powers under case management to transfer a claim, that is not to say that it is the right decision, the bottom line is fundamentally clear, the case could and should never have been decided because the other-side alleged that in their opinion the case was not worth more than 25k so therefore the case not only be transferred but also the track previously allocated by a Master was also incorrect, yea ok.

 

I really doubt that the value of your claim is over £25k, and so I can see why the Defendant requested FT and not MT.

 

The Defendant is perfectly entitled to request whatever track they like. It is then for the Judge to consider and make a decision. Requesting FT is not an abuse of process and was wholly appropriate.

 

You didn't answer my question by the way.

[Ganymede]

So all the evidence and allegations and those opinionated by the other-side solicitor, why was that considered?

 

Because their Solicitor was there and made submission appropriately and in the correct way.

 

Showing the Judge letters your former solicitors wrote (who no longer act for you and were not on the Court record) do not count as submissions.

 

You should have kept your solicitors who wanted to do the professional negligence case for you on a CFA.

[BazzaS]

So all the evidence and allegations and those opinionated by the other-side solicitor, why was that considered?

 

We haven't seen the defence to the 2nd and 3rd allegation, so I can only comment on the defence to the first allegation.

They pointed out that you could have suffered no harm as a result of their actions with regard to the PI claim, as your PI claim was res judicata, having been struck out : there was no possibility of a loss.

 

You didn't say "they are mistaken, my PI claim wasn't struck out", so the judge concluded the factual elements of points 11 and 12 of their defence were correct, dooming your claim for the first allegation.

[BazzaS]

You should have kept your solicitors who wanted to do the professional negligence case for you on a CFA.

 

And the wheel turns full circle: (from 17th May)

That's daft.

 

Just get the CFA signed and let the solicitors do all the hard work.

 

Only just over 3 months to be proven correct, that's not bad, GM!

[honeybee13]

Do we know when Callum has to submit this appeal please? I'm sure I asked.

 

HB

[callum1999]

The Defendants proposed directions include a stay to enable the application for strike out to be heard. The information below will only be applicable should the application for strike out be unsuccessful.

 

The claim has provisionally allocated to multi-track. The Defendant does not consider that the Claimants claim is worth £25,000 or that a trial of the claim will take longer than one day.

 

Very interesting reading, so it would now appear that the Defendants not only failed to seek a stay before the case was thrown out, the fast -track application would only be applied for, in the event that the strike out was unsuccessful.

 

So how did it end up fast-track and how did end up in the local CC??

[callum1999]

Do we know when Callum has to submit this appeal please? I'm sure I asked.

 

HB

 

By this Thursday HB, but there is no logical point in appealing any previous judgement to the same court or judge who should not have made judgement in the first instance it would again be a waste of time and costs for the wrong court to consider what are now, strong grounds to appeal.

[BazzaS]

By this Thursday HB, but there is no logical point in appealing any previous judgement to the same court or judge who should not have made judgement in the first instance it would again be a waste of time and costs for the wrong court to consider what are now, strong grounds to appeal.

 

Are you going to seek (within the time allowed) permission to appeal AND submit your appeal for review by a Circuit Judge, via that County Court?

 

If not, what DO you plan to do, and when by?

[BazzaS]

.

So how did it end up fast-track and how did end up in the local CC??

 

It didn't end up fast-track. It was multi-track (up until the point it was struck out.......)

[callum1999]

It didn't end up fast-track. It was multi-track (up until the point it was struck out.......)

 

It did end up fast-track that was the direction as the value of claim and the proposal made by the Defendants on which the Master made the order would have been for less than 25k, thus making it fast track and not multi-track because of the value that the other-side and the Master had now alleged, but not proofed as being the value of the claim.

 

The motivation to get it to a CC was based on the value of the claim, and to be able to do that, the multi-track would have had to have been replaced and end up, a fast track claim.

 

How come the application to strike out and on the provision that would have also been considered by the Master were never adopted, a stay of proceedings before such application was to be made to strike out, or are we just adding another Order that was never fulfilled but would have been considered before the case was transferred and allocated under fast track.

 

I do not recall any stay in proceedings, pre or post the other side making their application to strike the claim out.

 

Or could this be yet another misrepresentation to get the case to the Court and to the judge that the other-side were so desperate to consider their unfounded and mis-directed ploy to get the judge of their choose, how convenient was that.

[Ganymede]

The Defendants proposed directions include a stay to enable the application for strike out to be heard. The information below will only be applicable should the application for strike out be unsuccessful.

 

The claim has provisionally allocated to multi-track. The Defendant does not consider that the Claimants claim is worth £25,000 or that a trial of the claim will take longer than one day.

 

Very interesting reading, so it would now appear that the Defendants not only failed to seek a stay before the case was thrown out, the fast -track application would only be applied for, in the event that the strike out was unsuccessful.

 

So how did it end up fast-track and how did end up in the local CC??

 

Those Directions are normal and would seem perfectly reasonable.

 

From the little information you have provided I would agree that the value would be less than £25k.

[callum1999]

Those Directions are normal and would seem perfectly reasonable.

 

From the little information you have provided I would agree that the value would be less than £25k.

 

Well if they are normal, what happened to the stay.

 

Giving the circumstances and giving the way that the solicitor acted, and remembering the trust that a Charitable organisation gave him to remove what was a very serious risk to injury and to life, all this done with one thing on his mind, profit.

 

The trust issue that he showed no concerns too, what so ever, exemplary damages as to discourage others from gaining profit whilst allowing a family to live in such conditions which would include the risk to an electric fire that Shelter made the solicitor aware of, but as long as he was making profit, that was all that mattered.

 

All he had to do and was asked to do was to seek an injunction to remove a very serious risk, he decided to ignore that, ignore the safety of a number of people just to line his own pocket.

 

He needs to count his blessings that no-one was seriously injured due to his negligence.

 

Maybe you, him and his solicitors put up with the risks that we had to put up with add to the inconvenience and all the stress because of his non-actions, the value that you are questioning of the claim would not be in question..

[callum1999]

Well if they are normal, what happened to the stay.

 

Giving the circumstances and giving the way that the solicitor acted, and remembering the trust that a Charitable organisation gave him to remove what was a very serious risk to injury and to life, all this done with one thing on his mind, profit.

 

The trust issue that he showed no concerns too, what so ever, exemplary damages as to discourage others from gaining profit whilst allowing a family to live in such conditions which would include the risk to an electric fire that Shelter made the solicitor aware of, but as long as he was making profit, that was all that mattered.

 

All he had to do and was asked to do was to seek an injunction to remove a very serious risk, he decided to ignore that, ignore the safety of a number of people just to line his own pocket.

 

He needs to count his blessings that no-one was seriously injured due to his negligence.

 

Maybe you, him and his solicitors put up with the risks that we had to put up with add to the inconvenience and all the stress because of his non-actions, the value that you are questioning of the claim would not be in question..

 

You keep quoting the PI that was time barred, but subject to extension in any event.

 

I will just concentration on what the solicitor did not do, for near on two years, whilst making profit from allowing others to be at serious risk.