Solicitor/negligence claim:

[BazzaS]

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.

 

So you keep saying, but how?

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]

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

 

The stay became moot when the claim was struck out ..........

 

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 can't claim for "inconvenience" nor "stress", per se ; you'd need to find some other head of damages to claim for.

Mind you, you also currently have no active claim .........

[callum1999]

The stay became moot when the claim was struck out ..........

 

 

 

You can't claim for "inconvenience" nor "stress", per se ; you'd need to find some other head of damages to claim for.

Mind you, you also currently have no active claim .........

 

So you say...

[callum1999]

The stay became moot when the claim was struck out ..........

 

 

 

You can't claim for "inconvenience" nor "stress", per se ; you'd need to find some other head of damages to claim for.

Mind you, you also currently have no active claim .........

 

Your first paragraph, you may well feel that the stay became moot when the claim was struck out, what a load of cobblers, it just adds to the long list of misrepresentations that the dodgy solicitor used to rely on that dodgy judge.

 

And you are wrong on your second paragraph, do you make the law up, as you go, or [removed].

Edited August 30, 2016 by honeybee13
Insult

[Ganymede]

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.

 

There was no extension available to you for your PI claim. It was struck out and in any event statute barred by the time you instructed the Defendant.

 

You have been told this a hundred times.

[Ganymede]

Your first paragraph, you may well feel that the stay became moot when the claim was struck out, what a load of cobblers, it just adds to the long list of misrepresentations that the dodgy solicitor used to rely on that dodgy judge.

 

And you are wrong on your second paragraph, do you make the law up, as you go, or has nurse forgot to give you your medicine, again.

 

The stay was a sensible decision whilst waiting for the strike out application hearing.

 

Why bother incurring costs and wasting time if the claim was going to be struck out.

 

Most Judges would have agreed it was the right thing to do in the circumstances.

[BazzaS]

The stay became moot when the claim was struck out ..........

 

 

You can't claim for "inconvenience" nor "stress", per se ; you'd need to find some other head of damages to claim for.

Mind you, you also currently have no active claim .........

 

Your first paragraph, you may well feel that the stay became moot when the claim was struck out, what a load of cobblers, it just adds to the long list of misrepresentations that the dodgy solicitor used to rely on that dodgy judge.

 

And you are wrong on your second paragraph, do you make the law up, as you go, [removed].

 

What is wrong with the second paragraph?.

 

1) Your claim is currently struck out.

 

2) Regarding not being able to claim for "stress" per se: We've been through this on the thread

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?468590-hearing-thursday-Premier-Estates-LTD-.-taking-70yrs-olds-to-court-about-old-pipework&p=4938508#post4938508

You state your parents have suffered from stress and all the inconvenience from this, i am not surprised, this firm and like a lot of people are purely motivated by greed and money, and they are good at targeting the most vulnerable.

 

Get your parents, if they have not already done so, to see their doctor and document the problems this is causing to their health, very important.

 

Only useful if you can prove illness as a direct result, not "stress" or "stress related illness", unless there is a diagnosed psychiatric illness like depression or PTSD.

There can be no claim for just "stress" or "anxiety" alone, and it would be almost impossible to show eg angina or a heart attack was caused by the management company's actions rather than by intervening events.

 

Why do I state this? because it is the current state of the law.....

Damages are only recoverable for stress-related illnesses in a personal injury claim where there is a recognised psychiatric disorder.

.......

does not extend to the prevention of common place negative emotions or normal human conditions such as anxiety, stress, resentment or anger.

http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/l0700007.htm

 

3) Regarding not being able to claim for "inconvenience" per se:

"In negligence, general damages have to relate to a recognised physical or psychological injury

.......

and the general inconvenience in road traffic cases of having to deal with garages, solicitors, insurance companies and the like will not attract an award (see Taylor v Browne [1995] CLY 1842).

However, loss of use is recognised as a head of damage and the inconvenience of being without a car for any period of time will attract damages in a case where there is significant inconvenience"

 

http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/news/benchmarks-matching-the-damages-to-the-distress-the-law-that-usually-leaves-distress-and-inconvenience-to-go-uncompensated/21737.fullarticle

 

Whats that URL? oh, the law gazette!. What is the title? "the-law-that-usually-leaves-distress-and-inconvenience-to-go-uncompensated"!

 

So, as I said, "inconvenience" alone isn't sufficient ; another head of damages (such as 'loss of use') is required.

 

Meanwhile, you've gone very quiet about what you are going to do regarding your struck out claim .....

 

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?

Edited August 30, 2016 by honeybee13
Quoted comment removed.

[Ganymede]

Your first paragraph, you may well feel that the stay became moot when the claim was struck out, what a load of cobblers, it just adds to the long list of misrepresentations that the dodgy solicitor used to rely on that dodgy judge.

 

And you are wrong on your second paragraph, do you make the law up, as you go, or [removed].

 

 

Unfortunately even if you were awarded some compensation for "stress" and inconvenience it's only likely to be a modest sum, and nowhere even close to being over £25k.

 

Whilst the Court would likely sympathise, you will only be compensated for what did happen and not what might have happened.

[callum1999]

I disagree GM, this case and the giving circumstances are not just based straight forward dispute parties that would need the involvement of solicitors.

 

It is important to remember the vulnerability of the client, the entrust of an Organisation giving (Shelter) for that client, who at the time was suffering from severe PTSD.

 

If a solicitor was found to be in breach of his professional obligations and giving the circumstances of how he was suppose to act, but acted the complete opposite, just one example being, ignoring to seek an immediate court injunction as part reason, for taking the case, a Judge would act on not only the negligent actions of the solicitor, but the vulnerability of the client would most certainly be taking into consideration, which would include any award for compensation.

 

It is the trust and how that trust was breached, and remembering all the time the solicitor was failing, the problems, the risk and the potential risk and worries of an electrical fire were secondary in his mind, which was completely wrong.

[Ganymede]

You might disagree but you wouldn't be correct in doing so.

 

There's no way you're getting close to £25k for your stress, worry and anxiety. It is totally unrealistic.

 

Sorry.

[AndyOrch]

You might disagree but you wouldn't be correct in doing so.

 

There's no way you're getting close to £25k for your stress, worry and anxiety. It is totally unrealistic.

 

Sorry.

 

As is attempting any appeal IMHO.

[Ganymede]

As is attempting any appeal IMHO.

 

Quite.

[callum1999]

I am to appeal any previous judgement and am i right in thinking that this would need to be directed at a Circuit Judge?

 

The grounds on which i am to appeal are:

 

1. Any application by either party to strike out the claim/defence would need to be considered and thereafter adjudge, under the correct procedures which on this occasion have been violated.

 

2. In particular the Defendants failed to take into consideration the actual value of the claim, which has resulted in them making such application to strike the Claimants case out to an assigned Judge and track procedure (Fast Track) and after application, which in any event were two options that could not be relied upon (a) because of the value of case (b) the level of Judge for such application and giving the complexity of the case, was not appropriate, nor in the interest of justice;

 

3. The Claimant and in particular made the Court aware that despite repeated request's and subsequent Court Orders, the Defendants failed to provide a legitimate contract as (a) to legally act on behalf of the Claimant (b) such contract would have been presented and would need to be proofed in order to rely on a defence which and never established.

The Claimant has now been advised by the Information Commissioner Office, that this continues to be a breach, that subsequent investigations under The Data Protection Act are now active.

 

4 The Claimant who had complied with all previous Orders had disclosed evidence which if considered by the Judge during the Defendants application to have the Claimants claim struck out, refused to consider, which would include evidence from the Claimants previous legal advisers that (a) supported the Claimants claim (b) would undermined any application being made by the Defendants.

 

5. If the Claimant is successful in this appeal, he would respectfully ask the Court to consider imposing a wasted cost order against the Defendants who would be mindful of the application and the merits which on this occasion were misdirected and incorrectly pleaded as stated and relied upon by the Claimant, under Paragraph 2.

[Ganymede]

1) The correct procedures were followed when the Defendant made their application to strike out your PoC.

 

2) The Defendant's opinion on the value and track are not reasons to appeal. Neither is the Courts case management decisions.

 

3)You should have pleaded in your PoC about a breach of contract and requested disclosure of the contract pre issue. Your claim never got to the Standard Disclosure stage so not a reason to appeal.

 

4) The letters from your former solicitors are not evidence. They were simply correspondence. All allegations should have been in your PoC.

 

5) You wouldn't get wasted costs. You could try for your appeal costs but it's likely you'd lose and be ordered to pay the Defendant's appeal costs.

[BazzaS]

I am to appeal any previous judgement and am i right in thinking that this would need to be directed at a Circuit Judge?

 

The grounds on which i am to appeal are:

 

1.

.........

 

5. If the Claimant is successful in this appeal, he would respectfully ask the Court to consider imposing a wasted cost order against the Defendants who would be mindful of the application and the merits which on this occasion were misdirected and incorrectly pleaded as stated and relied upon by the Claimant, under Paragraph 2.

 

I agree with GM's analysis of the lack of merit of points of appeal 1-5.

 

Re: 5 ; the OP has given (poor!) advice on another thread about wasted costs.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?468590-hearing-thursday-Premier-Estates-LTD-.-taking-70yrs-olds-to-court-about-old-pipework

 

I highlighted the error there, but the OP is still making the same error

"Costs" are ordered against (to be paid by) the solicitors client.

"Wasted costs" are against the solicitor themselves.

If a solicitor has pursued a near hopeless case, because their client has insisted, "wasted costs" won't be awarded, only costs (dependant on which track?).

The "punishment" that should be asked for, for a claimant who has acted unreasonably by insisting on their solicitor pursuing a hopeless case, isn't "wasted costs" but "costs on an indemnity basis"

!

 

Asking for "wasted costs" against the defendant (D) rather than against their legal advisor (when what you want against D is "costs on an indemnity basis") just shows you are using terminology you have heard but don't understand.....

[callum1999]

I am to appeal any previous judgement and am i right in thinking that this would need to be directed at a Circuit Judge?

 

The grounds on which i am to appeal are:

 

1. Any application by either party to strike out the claim/defence would need to be considered and thereafter adjudge, under the correct procedures which on this occasion have been violated.

 

2. In particular the Defendants failed to take into consideration the actual value of the claim, which has resulted in them making such application to strike the Claimants case out to an assigned Judge and track procedure (Fast Track) and after application, which in any event were two options that could not be relied upon (a) because of the value of case (b) the level of Judge for such application and giving the complexity of the case, was not appropriate, nor in the interest of justice;

 

3. The Claimant and in particular made the Court aware that despite repeated request's and subsequent Court Orders, the Defendants failed to provide a legitimate contract as (a) to legally act on behalf of the Claimant (b) such contract would have been presented and would need to be proofed in order to rely on a defence which and never established.

The Claimant has now been advised by the Information Commissioner Office, that this continues to be a breach, that subsequent investigations under The Data Protection Act are now active.

 

4 The Claimant who had complied with all previous Orders had disclosed evidence which if considered by the Judge during the Defendants application to have the Claimants claim struck out, refused to consider, which would include evidence from the Claimants previous legal advisers that (a) supported the Claimants claim (b) would undermined any application being made by the Defendants.

 

5. If the Claimant is successful in this appeal, he would respectfully ask the Court to consider imposing a wasted cost order against the Defendants who would be mindful of the application and the merits which on this occasion were misdirected and incorrectly pleaded as stated and relied upon by the Claimant, under Paragraph 2.

 

Can i leapfrog the appeal procedure within the CC and go straight to the High Court, because i do not have any confidence in the County Court that has dealt with my claim.??

[BazzaS]

Can i leapfrog the appeal procedure within the CC and go straight to the High Court, because i do not have any confidence in the County Court that has dealt with my claim.??

 

No. The Courts aren't bothered by if you have confidence in the County Court or not.

They will be concerned by if the correct procedures were / are followed (& procedure doesn't seem to be your "string suit"!)

 

If you appeal to the County Court and your appeal is denied permission or is granted permission, heard and refused : then and only then can you (at least : in theory) go to the High Court for a judicial review.

 

You need to come up with a valid grounds of appeal (other than those you have posted so far, which aren't valid).

 

Who (other than you) feels you have grounds to appeal (let alone for a judicial review)?

[BazzaS]

In theory the Master of the Rolls could decide the Court of Appeal should hear your appeal.

 

(Under s57 of the Access to Justice Act 1999)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/22/section/57

 

This might happen for a case of significant public interest.

It won't happen for your case.

[callum1999]

No. The Courts aren't bothered by if you have confidence in the County Court or not.

They will be concerned by if the correct procedures were / are followed (& procedure doesn't seem to be your "string suit"!)

 

If you appeal to the County Court and your appeal is denied permission or is granted permission, heard and refused : then and only then can you (at least : in theory) go to the High Court for a judicial review.

 

You need to come up with a valid grounds of appeal (other than those you have posted so far, which aren't valid).

 

Who (other than you) feels you have grounds to appeal (let alone for a judicial review)?

 

But it is not up to me, nor you either, that will decide whether i have grounds for appeal, its irrelevant, your opinion is just that, an opinion, not factual or real in the real world, just words.

 

I am sure that i can leapfrog the the lower courts and cut out all the back slapping going on, down the lower end of the Justice system, the bottom feeders so to speak.

 

The case will ultimately be decided in a proper court with a proper judge, the case obviously to big for the last one, but as i correctly predicted, was as predictable judgement, right again...

[callum1999]

In theory the Master of the Rolls could decide the Court of Appeal should hear your appeal.

 

(Under s57 of the Access to Justice Act 1999)

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/22/section/57

 

This might happen for a case of significant public interest.

It won't happen for your case.

 

Why because you say so, it must be right, but hold on..

[BazzaS]

 

I am sure that i can leapfrog the the lower courts and cut out all the back slapping going on, down the lower end of the Justice system, the bottom feeders so to speak.

 

I'm sure you are wrong, it can't "leapfrog" other than to the Court of Appeal, and that isn't going to happen for your case.

 

The case will ultimately be decided in a proper court with a proper judge, the case obviously to big for the last one, but as i correctly predicted, was as predictable judgement, right again...

 

It isn't hard to predict you'd get your case struck out, based on the information you have posted.

So "you predicted right" : not hard for a self-fulfilling property!

 

Mind you, one can also factor in "even a broken clock is right twice a day!"

[BazzaS]

Why because you say so, it must be right, but hold on..

 

1) Because your case isn't of significant public interest.

2) Because you have no valid grounds of appeal (you think you do, but no one else seems to!)

[AndyOrch]

Post unapproved...anymore personal attacks and I will close the thread.

 

Andy

[SuperVillain]

But it is not up to me, nor you either, that will decide whether i have grounds for appeal, its irrelevant, your opinion is just that, an opinion, not factual or real in the real world, just words.

 

I am sure that i can leapfrog the the lower courts and cut out all the back slapping going on, down the lower end of the Justice system, the bottom feeders so to speak.

 

The case will ultimately be decided in a proper court with a proper judge, the case obviously to big for the last one, but as i correctly predicted, was as predictable judgement, right again...

 

Callum, I'm not sure this needs to be reiterated but please think long and hard about the consequences of trying this appeal and losing (which is the most likely outcome based on the exchanges on here...)

 

You already have a costs order against you from the strike out hearing. There will more than likely be another from the appeal, which is likely to be greater than the last one.

 

And the other side are almost certainly going to take steps to enforce the costs orders... HCEO's, Third Party Debt Orders, Charging Orders etc etc etc...

[BazzaS]

Callum, I'm not sure this needs to be reiterated but please think long and hard about the consequences of trying this appeal and losing (which is the most likely outcome based on the exchanges on here...)

 

You already have a costs order against you from the strike out hearing. There will more than likely be another from the appeal, which is likely to be greater than the last one.

 

And the other side are almost certainly going to take steps to enforce the costs orders... HCEO's, Third Party Debt Orders, Charging Orders etc etc etc...

 

1) The OP has previously said that he has no property they could obtain a charging order over. He didn't seem too bothered about the risk of costs.

 

5th June:

 

As for costs, you cannot get blood out of a stone, i have nothing now, and would have nothing in the unlikely event that the Defendants win this case, which evidently at this point, looks highly unlikely.

 

Do you own a property?

 

6th June:

 

Hi Steampowered,

 

No i do not own my own property, i am a council tenant, i have no capital, other than welfare benefits which would include an amount for DLA.

 

2) Having not sought verbal leave to appeal when his claim was struck out, the OP needs to seek leave to appeal. This will likely be refused, as 'first glance' at his (currently stated) "grounds for appeal" will show no viable grounds nor prospect of success.

It is only if he then persists (requesting hearings, judicial review, or if his appeal actually gets heard!) that the other side will have to be given notice, and then the costs may mount up again.....