Solicitor/negligence claim:

[BazzaS]

What the same Bazza who before today saying that the claim was status barred but now has suddenly decided on the fact of evidence that hold on the claim was not just status barred the solicitor was merely bluffing, lol, you could not make it up Gn.

 

"The claim was statute barred" : I've said so all along.

 

That the solicitor was using the "the court COULD use s33 to disapply the statute bar" as a tactical ploy : doesn't contradict the fact that the limitation act sets the statute bar.

 

That it was a bluff because the Court COULD do so (in theory) but WOULDN'T do so (in practice) explains why that situation isn't illogical.

Because you have (for months!) not "got the point" is why I had started putting the "COULD" and "WOULD" (or "WOULD not") in Caps, hoping it'd sink in!

 

If you want to return (again!) to discussing S33: so be it.

You again want to argue that the prospect of a successful S33 application was more than "just a bluff"?

 

I'm willing to back up my belief that a S33 application stood no real prospect. I noted the relevant factors back on the 15th July.

 

Can it be extended: if forced into the gross oversimplification of a "yes or no" answer, the answer would have to be yes, it can.

However, "simple" would be an apt description for someone who felt it would (rather than "could") be extended. It "could", for a yes or no answer, but in the circumstances described, it wouldn't be.

 

It could be extended by mutual consent : why would the council be minded to agree that?.

It could be extended for a minor or protected party. The OP has shown no understanding of the law regarding limitation, but that doesn't mean they lack competance to issue proceedings (and in some of their posts they claim to have done so...)

The limitation could be disapplied (technically different to an extension) under s.33, but considering the six-fold factors the court would consider : that too seems most unlikely.

 

Since others have agreed with me (about S33 being a new-starter) and you are the one with the "outlying view", and you have chosen to return to the subject, why don't you try and persuade me I'm wrong?.

 

"the six-fold factors the court would consider" : So, What are the six factors set out in S33? You'd need to know them to work out if the court would agree with a S33 application / create a persuasive S33 application.

 

Applying those factors to the facts of your case, how do you reach the conclusion the court had any prospect of allowing a S33 disapplication of the statute bar?

 

You need to bear in mind

a) the S33 factors are defined in statute

b) the Court of Appeal has issued guidance on interpreting S33, (the case being :

 

Clifford Sayers v (1) Lord Chelwood, Deceased (2) Lady Chelwood [2012] EWCA Civ 1715

 

How do you fit your conclusion in with Lord Justice Jackson's leading argument? Particularly paragraphs 56-60??

 

Para 56 : "the general approach to section 33 is that the burden is on the claimant. The claimant is seeking to be exempted from the normal consequences of failing to issue proceedings in time. It is for the claimant to establish by reference to the criteria set out in section 33 that it would be equitable to allow the action to proceed, despite the expiry of the prescribed limitation period."

 

Para 57 : "that the burden was on the claimant"

 

Para 60 : "powerful reasons why the discretion of the court should not be exercised in favour of the claimant."

 

If you are claiming that the court WOULD allow a S33 application to disapply the statute bar rather than just COULD apply it, you'd need to come up with "powerful reasons" using the factors laid out in S33 and

the case of Sayers.

 

I suggest you

a) can't establish those reasons using the six factors S33 sets out, based not only on the facts but also

b) you aren't a strong enough advocate to produce a persuasive argument.

 

You can "huff and puff" (that much is clear!), but when it comes down to

The law and applying the law to the facts : you just fall short.

Bet you can't produce a logical, reasoned argument per the S33 factors and Sayers.....

[BazzaS]

"Since others have agreed with me (about S33 being a new-starter) and you are the one with the "outlying view", and you have chosen to return to the subject, why don't you try and persuade me I'm wrong?."

 

Typo correction : "New-starter" should read "non-starter"

[Ganymede]

A section 33 application would have been relevant had Callum not already issued proceedings.

 

All this section 33 talking is distracting from the point.

 

An appeal/set aside of the Order striking out his claim would have been the correct way to go. However, after all this time it is very, very unlike to be allowed.

[BazzaS]

Talking of appeals : what is the situation regarding any appeal of the strike-out of the recent claim (the strike-out made on 18th August 2016).

 

Isn't that the key issue currently?

[woad]

Pure speculation:

 

Callum will not post the remainder of the defence because it claims the solicitor did inform him that his PI appeal did not hold water

Callum will not post the 'other correspondence' referred to because is demonstrates the solicitor informed him of the above.

 

This is not meant derisively, but one starts to draw conclusions from the lack of pertinent information. Hard not to when the OP argues and belittles the people he is asking for advice.

[SuperVillain]

Talking of appeals : what is the situation regarding any appeal of the strike-out of the recent claim (the strike-out made on 18th August 2016).

 

Isn't that the key issue currently?

 

Agreed, all the limitation stuff is academic if Callum has not applied for permission to appeal.

[callum1999]

Agreed, all the limitation stuff is academic if Callum has not applied for permission to appeal.

 

And of course its all academic, it would be now the limitation period would have been irrelevant despite that being defined as the main reason why the solicitor and according to most advice on here have relied on which giving the solicitors very own evidence proves the complete opposite.

 

Just for the record and giving the evidence from Shelter and their legal team extending the limitation would have been a formality.

[Ganymede]

And of course its all academic, it would be now the limitation period would have been irrelevant despite that being defined as the main reason why the solicitor and according to most advice on here have relied on which giving the solicitors very own evidence proves the complete opposite.

 

Just for the record and giving the evidence from Shelter and their legal team extending the limitation would have been a formality.

 

There is no evidence from the solicitors or Shelter that PROVES anything of the sort, stop talking absolute nonsense.

 

No application for section 33 relief is ever a formality. They are very difficult applications to succeed in and are not often granted as the limitation period is strictly enforced by the Courts and not to be taken lightly.

 

But anyway, for the hundredth time a section 33 application would not have been relevant in your case anyway so it's irrelevant as you had already issued Court proceedings and had your claim struck out.

[callum1999]

And of course its all academic, it would be now the limitation period would have been irrelevant despite that being defined as the main reason why the solicitor and according to most advice on here have relied on which giving the solicitors very own evidence proves the complete opposite.

 

Just for the record and giving the evidence from Shelter and their legal team extending the limitation would have been a formality.

 

add to that the medical evidence that the solicitor requested and was provided again the Court would have had more than enough proof to use its powers to grant an extention.

 

Or was requesting a providing the Council with medical evidence to establish the PI just another clever move by the not so clever solicitor.

 

Or this was just another Bazza bluff being played out by the not so clever solicitor who pretended to represent me and without the needed authority to act in any event.

[Ganymede]

add to that the medical evidence that the solicitor requested and was provided again the Court would have had more than enough proof to use its powers to grant an extention.

 

Or was requesting a providing the Council with medical evidence to establish the PI just another clever move by the not so clever solicitor.

 

Or this was just another Bazza bluff being played out by the not so clever solicitor who pretended to represent me and without the needed authority to act in any event.

 

 

 

I've already explained the reasons behind the solicitor obtaining your medical records.

 

An injury claim under the disrepair protocol only requires your medical records or letter from you GP.

 

Your personal injury claim under the personal injury protocol was already struck out and dead and gone as you hadn't appealed the strike out.

 

There is nothing underhand or suspicious about the solicitor obtaining your medical records. It is the correct procedure to follow.

[BazzaS]

And of course its all academic

 

Yup, academic for the PI claim as you didn't appeal the strike out of your PI claim in time.

Academic for the negligence claim against the first solicitor, as you haven't (from what you have, and indeed, haven't posted) appealed the strike out of that claim. You are likely out of time there too, and each passing day makes any application for extension of the time allowed less likely.....

 

 

, it would be now the limitation period would have been irrelevant despite that being defined as the main reason why the solicitor and according to most advice on here have relied on which giving the solicitors very own evidence proves the complete opposite.

 

Say what?.

You are confusing s.33, the solicitor's evidence, and "proof". As ever.

That, and / or you are spouting gibberish again. Since you never try and justify what you are saying, it is so hard to tell if you are just wrong, confused or irrational.

 

Just for the record and giving the evidence from Shelter and their legal team extending the limitation would have been a formality.

 

I doubt they said that, and if they did say it, they are wrong. Not because I say so, but because the Court of Appeal says so. Cite above, LJ Jackson's comments, in Sayers.

Its not a formality, it is a "burden on the claimant".

 

But, your returning to S33 is a 'red herring'. It isn't useful to you as a valid grounds of appeal, as

a) you are wrong about it, and

b) as GM has said, it wouldn't have been the correct way forward anyway.

 

There is no evidence from the solicitors or Shelter that PROVES anything of the sort, stop talking absolute nonsense.

 

No application for section 33 relief is ever a formality. They are very difficult applications to succeed in and are not often granted as the limitation period is strictly enforced by the Courts and not to be taken lightly.

 

But anyway, for the hundredth time a section 33 application would not have been relevant in your case anyway so it's irrelevant as you had already issued Court proceedings and had your claim struck out.

 

Yup.

 

The thing is, you persist in your delusions.

If you actually tried explaining why you believe what you believe, the flaw in your logic could be explained to you, but you don't. You don't try and justify your belief, at least not with any comprehensible reasoned argument, so, all you do is repeat the same tired delusions.

 

But, returning to "its all academic". Are you planning on doing anything about your case being struck out, or is it all just "hot air and vinegar" here on CAG, instead .......

[callum1999]

There is no evidence from the solicitors or Shelter that PROVES anything of the sort, stop talking absolute nonsense.

 

No application for section 33 relief is ever a formality. They are very difficult applications to succeed in and are not often granted as the limitation period is strictly enforced by the Courts and not to be taken lightly.

 

But anyway, for the hundredth time a section 33 application would not have been relevant in your case anyway so it's irrelevant as you had already issued Court proceedings and had your claim struck out.

 

But it would have been relevent in my claim it would further show just how negligent the solicitor was who has clearly relied on the limitation period as a means of defence which was used successfully to have a case thrown out.

[callum1999]

Yup, academic for the PI claim as you didn't appeal the strike out of your PI claim in time.

Academic for the negligence claim against the first solicitor, as you haven't (from what you have, and indeed, haven't posted) appealed that. You are likely out of time there too, and each passing day makes any application for extension of the time allowed less likely.....

 

 

 

 

Say what?.

You are confusing s.33, the solicitor's evidence, and "proof". As ever.

That, and / or you are spouting gibberish again. Since you never try and justify what you are saying, it is so hard to tell if you are just wrong, confused or irrationa;.

 

 

 

I doubt they said that, and if they did say it, they are wrong. Not because I say so, but because the Court of Appeal says so. Cite above, LJ Jackson's comments, in Sayers.

Its not a formality, it is a "burden on the claimant".

 

But, your returning to S33 is a 'red herring'. It isn't useful to you as a valid grounds of appeal, as

a) you are wrong about it, and

b) as GM has said, it wouldn't have been the correct way forward anyway.

 

 

 

Yup.

 

The thing is, you persist in your delusions.

If you actually tried explaining why you believe what you believe, the flaw in your logic could be explained to you, but you don't. You don't try and justify your belief, at least not with any comprehensible reasoned argument, so, all you do is repeat the same tired delusions.

 

But, returning to "its all academic". Are you planning on doing anything about your case being struck out, or is it all just "hot air and vinegar" here on CAG, instead .......

 

I honestly believe the case and the circumstances are now to far advanced for the same local DJ to decide whether there is a case or not.

 

What do you think?

[Ganymede]

But it would have been relevent in my claim it would further show just how negligent the solicitor was who has clearly relied on the limitation period as a means of defence which was used successfully to have a case thrown out.

 

The solicitor is correct.

 

Your negligence claim regarding the limitation period has no merit whatsoever.

 

By the time you instructed the solicitors your claim had already been issued by you and struck out with no appeal of the strike out made.

 

Even if you hadn't already issued and been struck out then your PI claim was already statute barred in any event. So again no negligence on behalf of your solicitor.

 

You were also told this in writing by the solicitor.

 

So based on the above your poorly pleaded claim was correctly struck out for having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

[BazzaS]

But it would have been relevent in my claim it would further show just how negligent the solicitor was who has clearly relied on the limitation period as a means of defence which was used successfully to have a case thrown out.

 

The posters here disagree. Not one person has agreed with you.

 

More importantly, the judge disagreed. Your case was struck out.

If you believe they "erred in law" ; appeal it. Bet you haven't, and won't.

a) because you'd be wrong, and lose (even if you were given permission to appeal)

b) because even if you were right, you can't seem to state your legal arguments clearly, logically and concisely. That alone would risk you loosing at appeal, but you being "just plain wrong" is just another nail in that particular coffin.

[BazzaS]

I honestly believe the case and the circumstances are now to far advanced for the same local DJ to decide whether there is a case or not.

 

What do you think?

 

I think that there is no case, while it is struck out.

 

I think that had you appealed the strike out, the appeal wouldn't have been heard by that (or any other) District Judge, but by a Circuit Judge.

So (and not for the first time!) it isn't clear what point you are trying to make.

 

The case was suitable for disposal by a District Judge. If you wanted to appeal the strike out of your PI claim, on the basis the DJ was the wrong person to deal with it, or that the strike out was erroneous, you could have.

 

But you haven't have you?. Else you'd have posted your appeal documentation, and not still been asking about grounds for the appeal now, after the deadline has passed.

[callum1999]

The solicitor is correct.

 

Your negligence claim regarding the limitation period has no merit whatsoever.

 

By the time you instructed the solicitors your claim had already been issued by you and struck out with no appeal of the strike out made.

 

Even if you hadn't already issued and been struck out then your PI claim was already statute barred in any event. So again no negligence on behalf of your solicitor.

 

You were also told this in writing by the solicitor.

 

So based on the above your poorly pleaded claim was correctly struck out for having no merit and no reasonable prospects of success.

 

Of course it had merit, the solicitor as well as applying for an injunction could have applied for a Section 33 as their evidence clearly would suggest.

 

Add to that the solicitor could have also appealed the strike out claim which would not have been subject to any limitation periods that is three applications missed and probably because there was no funding nor a legitimate contract for the solicitor to make one application to the Court let alone make three.

 

He just was not interested in working for the profit which he will have to pay back because that is public funding that would have been more better served on the old or the vulnerable rather than being sat in some two bob solicitors bank account who has the morals of a water rat.

[callum1999]

I think that there is no case, while it is struck out.

 

I think that had you appealed the strike out, the appeal wouldn't have been heard by that (or any other) District Judge, but by a Circuit Judge.

So (and not for the first time!) it isn't clear what point you are trying to make.

 

The case was suitable for disposal by a District Judge. If you wanted to appeal the strike out of your PI claim, on the basis the DJ was the wrong person to deal with it, or that the strike out was erroneous, you could have.

 

But you haven't have you?. Else you'd have posted your appeal documentation, and not still been asking about grounds for the appeal now, after the deadline has passed.

 

Had?

 

Permission to appeal?

 

Who should be considering?, what level of judge?

[BazzaS]

Had?

 

Permission to appeal?

 

Who should be considering?, what level of judge?

 

Considering what?

[callum1999]

Legal Aid, anyone know the rules on claiming for work done?

 

Seems to be a topic that no-one seems to know the answers too.

[callum1999]

Had?

 

Permission to appeal?

 

Who should be considering?, what level of judge?

 

And is that right i have never posted up any grounds for appeal on here?

 

Are you sure of that?

 

Think you will find that and not for the first time you have convinced yourself that because you believe in that it must be true.

 

Or are you bluffing like the solicitor who laid claim to representing me.

[BazzaS]

Legal Aid, anyone know the rules on claiming for work done?

 

Seems to be a topic that no-one seems to know the answers too.

 

Or maybe they know the answers but have reasons not to post ; maybe they don't want to get into an argument (rather than a discussion), or have seen how you treat people who answer with answers that aren't what you want to hear.

 

Deciding that people don't know the answer rather than know and aren't posting (for whatever reason) is another "logical step too far".

[BazzaS]

And is that right i have never posted up any grounds for appeal on here?

 

Are you sure of that?

 

Think you will find that and not for the first time you have convinced yourself that because you believe in that it must be true.

 

Or are you bluffing like the solicitor who laid claim to representing me.

 

You've posted what you think could be valid grounds of appeal : who else believes they are valid?.

You haven't posted the details of any actual appeal application.

[callum1999]

Considering what?

 

You tell me.

 

You have had an answer for everything else that would remotely show that i was wrong but everyone else was right and i would include you in that little circle.

 

Had?

 

Permission to appeal?

 

Who should be considering? what level of judge?

[AndyOrch]

Time to close this...? Then you can assist other posters ?

 

Andy