judge striking out defence?

[jodyperry]

o and by the way i tried to find out the name of the judge but them woman didnt know and said there is a panel of 3 judges that would of reached that decision sorry peeps

[Josamolly]

Hi Jody

 

Well made up for you... excellent news. The letter seems fine to me, looks like your on a roll now and so the next claim should be a simple one..LOL.

 

Very well done..

 

Jos

[jodyperry]

mmmm next up mortgage companies whole new ball game lol

[Theadmiral]

Nice one Jody. Should keep them on their toes!!!!!!! Cheers

[jodyperry]

hi

 

just to let everyone know that

 

1. i have recieved a letter from cobbetts stating that if i do not return the notice of discontinuance within 7 days they will notify the judge that full payment as been made and to dismiss the rest of my claim. well carry on the court have a copy of the letter i sent anyway hehehe.

 

2. got a letter on saturday from the court threatening to throw lloyds defence out too!!!!!!!!!!!

[Janet-M]

can you let us know exactly what the letter about throwing out the defence said please as didn't they threaten that on the 8th

[jodyperry]

hi

 

i think thats just about what was said the letter is on the first page of the post. I couldnt get the judges name as apparently its a panel of 3 but the 2 signatures are the same on both letters.

[jodyperry]

I am writing to highlight my partner’s case which has been sent to Skegness Court (case *****). Due to the fact that my case is not to be heard until April I would be grateful if you could take this information into account. The letter is as follows:

The court of its own motion is considering striking out the defence in this action an abuse of process.

The basis for this is the fact that the defendant is settling all claims of this nature where claimants are seeking the reimbursement of bank charges, with no claims proceeding to a contested hearing.

The court considers the authority of Mullun-v-Hackney London Borough Council [1997] 2 AIIER 906 relevant.

If the defendant objects to the proposed strike out it is ordered to file, within 14 days of the date of service of this order, a schedule setting out all claims of this type in England and Wales which have proceeded to a final contested hearing, and the outcome of such hearings, together with a schedule of all such claims which it has compromised before final hearing, after proceedings have been issued.

Upon receipt of any such objections the court will consider listing the claim for an on notice hearing of the strike out issue.

In the absence of any such files being returned in time, the defence herein will be struck out and judgement entered for the amount claimed by the claimant, together with the appropriate costs claimable on the small claims track.

Whilst I fully understand that this may be the opinion of 1 judge and maybe not others I feel that an important issue has been highlighted and now you have the information you can make an informed decision about whether you personally decide to take the information on board.

Should the courts require any further information please do not hesitate to contact me using the contact details above.

Yours Sincerely

[Destinyofsouls]

Karnevil,

Would we not need the names of the claimant & defendant for these cases? And what case does Mullun-v-Hackney London Borough Council [1997] 2 AIIER 906 refer to and how is it relevant?

[pete_h]

jodyperry and GaryH

 

Thanks - have combined the Boston County Court strike out threat and the letter in a notice of discontinuance letter to Worcester County Court. Hope they follow their colleagues' lead:)

[pete_h]

PS just googled the case and I think it's Mullen, not "Mullun". Best to get it right when addressing judges!

[Destinyofsouls]

mmm... I've googled that case but can't find anything

[forteboy]

Sorry guys, if this has already been covered

 

BBC NEWS | Programmes | Moneybox | Judge warns banks over charges

 

 

but with this on the BBC website surely more Judges will commence this style of treatment for the banks

 

Dennis:cool:

[Destinyofsouls]

I believe thats the case that the judge quoted in his order relating to the strike out.

 

 

''Courts may take judicial notice of matters which are

so notorious, or clearly established, or susceptible of

demonstration by reference to a readily obtainable

and authoritative source that evidence of their

existence is unnecessary; and local courts are not

merely permitted to use their local knowledge, but are

to be regarded as fulfilling a constitutional function if

they do so: Mullen v Hackney LBC [1997] 1 WLR

1103, CA (Civ Div).''

 

Anybody help me on this one? I have googled this case but cannot find anything. Where did you get this info karnevil?