Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good points, TJ. I still think there are holes in the story.   OH [tennis fan] thinks Djokovic could have problems getting into the States for the US open if he doesn't get vaxxed.
    • There is little point asking questions if, when given a direction such as that by FTMDave above, you decide that instead of reading a thread from post #39, you read from #63 and think that it will give you answers.   This Forum is self help, so it is incumbent on you to do just that .
    • “The following has now been clarified as a category for which you may be eligible for a temporary medical exemption: Recent PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (after 31 July 2021) where a vaccination can be deferred until six months after the infection,” TA said in a letter to players and their teams.   The same document also made it clear that any applications for a medical exemption needed to be sent “no later than Friday 10 December 2021” — six days before Djokovic tested positive — meaning a positive Covid test would have come too late for TA’s exemption guidelines. Djokovic missed exemption cut-off by six days   Let alone that he quite clearly seemed to juggle the actual date of knowledge of his alleged infection to allow him to masklessly mix with youngsters and others     Anyway all other issues aside, lets ask the first question first: He applied for his visa without  required exemptions at the time, and without any intention whatsoever of being vaccinatated (not that he had time) - why? and how did he think he was going to be allowed access?   Notes: * I don't know, but Its probably a simple tick box of 'do you meet requirements and can you supply evidence' on the original application * There was clearly some issues with this known as the Aus tennis association said they had confirmed a prior infection (within stated limits/requirements) could or did allow an exemption (technicality - also included statement that infection exemption meant vaccination could be deferred form 6 months - not refused)    
    • Indeed I thought the court case concentrated more on technicalities and possible flaws in the reasoning rather than whether Djokovic met the conditions. Maybe not a legal reason, but he doesn't seem to worry about keeping to the rules about self-isolating and seems to have been economical with the truth over travel in the two weeks before the tournament.   As you say, there are doubts about the test and someone has also asked what he planned to do in the event he didn't manage to test positive a couple of weeks before he travelled.
    • There is a confusion of terminology here. When it comes to documents granting tenancies they are either described as "tenancy agreements" or "leases". However, though the former is generally used to describe an instrument granting a tenancy for three years or less and the latter to describe an instrument made by deed granting a tenancy for more than three years, they are not "terms of art", that is words or phrases with set meanings. The word "lease", though perhaps primarily used to refer to a document. also refers to an interest in land so that "lease" and "tenancy" mean the same thing, that is a leasehold interest.   Any purported grant of a tenancy for a term exceeding three years is void as provided by section 52(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925:   All conveyances of land or of any interest therein are void for the purpose of conveying or creating a legal estate unless made by deed.   By way of clarification:   Section 205(1)(ii) says:   “Conveyance” includes a mortgage, charge, lease, assent, vesting declaration, vesting instrument, disclaimer, release and every other assurance of property or of an interest therein by any instrument, except a will   Section 52(2) says:   This section does not apply to [...] leases or tenancies or other assurances not required by law to be made in writing   That is clarified by section 54(2) which says:   Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Part of this Act shall affect the creation by parol of leases taking effect in possession for a term not exceeding three years (whether or not the lessee is given power to extend the term) at the best rent which can be reasonably obtained without taking a fine   (For your information I post as Lawcruncher on LLZ)  
  • Our picks

Good News - I WON!!


embo
 Share

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5518 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

I filed Moneyclaim 22/11/06 & They acnowledged -

I have been sat patiently waiting for their defence, when this morning i received a letter saying I could have all my money back plus my court fees.

Just like That! (£524 total)

The money will be in my account within 5 days! Whoo hoo! Then i can make a donation!

Just Natwest to go now - hopefully that be done before x-mas too - then i will be "leaving on a jet plane" I could be in the carribean by Boxing day!

Yeeeee haaa!

So happy! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm in the same boat! Or bath, by your avatar!! A whole week has gone by and I still don't need an aeroplane!!

All the best to you.

 

A D

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]"Another charge by the Bank?"

 

1st Claim (Current account)

30/11/06 WON! £3146.41

 

2nd Claim (Mortgage charges)

27/3/07 WON! - £277

 

3rd Claim (Credit card charges)

14/5/07 WON! £300

 

4th Claim (Old account 97-99 £444)

20/4/07 Prelim sent

9/5/07 LBA sent

Can't remember now but I WON!!!

My current thread - An A-Z - My previous saga

 

IF THIS HAS HELPED PLEASE CLICK THE SCALES - THANK YOU.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...