walton v rbos

[caro]

So sorry to read this Paul. I hope you do appeal it, as it seems entirely wrong that the skeleton defence was given to you 10 minutes before the case was heard, so you could not examine it and prepare more thoroughly. It seems to me the judge made up his mind it would end that day, and nothing would move him from that. At least he had the decency not to allow the costs.

[JonCris]

I agree with caro & hope you will appeal it as the judgement was not only perverse but it was also grossly unfair to allow a defence argument to be submitted moments before trial

 

Can you confirm the name of the judge?

 

It does appear that some but not all are riding roughshod over the rights of litigants in person whom they must assume are acting both alone & without support. Thereby the courts conduct will not be a matter for wider discussion.

 

Whilst we can in no way influence the courts I do consider it might be a good idea to mention in the POC that the claimant/defendant is a member of this group. This may cause some courts to feel less inclined to ride roughshod over 'litigants in person' knowing that their conduct is going to be picked over in some detail.............any comments

[paulwlton]

I am considering appealing. To have the new defence and cases relied on submitted just before the hearing was surely wrong, and i'm going to spend some time reading.

 

The judge did not like the fact a ccj was in question, the way i got round this was explaining that through the running of the account the defendant was unjustly enriched on a monthly basis, ie, when the account was in debit after a payment of salary.

 

If the defence had been forwarded has insructed by the court order the outcome may have been totaly different.

 

Yes i know the judges name.

[JonCris]

Good! & can you share it with us

[paulwlton]

Deputy District Judge Munroe.

[JonCris]

Deputy............that speaks volumes

[bill-k]

Good to see you considering appealing, Paul. That would at least open up the possibility of both turning this around for you, and of getting this kind of conduct prevented.

 

You know how many would be behind you on this !!

[martinpar]

I'm guessing that going to appeal would make you liable for the other side's costs if it went against you?

[itsamomentintime]

this is a very complicated thread i am sure you will agree

 

paulwlton - can you, in simple terms explain the EXACT reason for the strike out, so other claimants can make sure that we can minimise the risk of being struck out?

 

it seems the judge penalised you for not realising that the charges are unlawful, but how are you supposed to know that? we expect our banks to act lawfully, no?

[Guest willowb]

Deputy............that speaks volumes

I didn't know they had deputies???

 

Wxxx

[bill-k]

I didn't know they had deputies???

 

Wxxx

They've even got Sheriffs in Scotland !!

[Guest willowb]

lol:p

Wxxx

[paulwlton]

this is a very complicated thread i am sure you will agree

 

paulwlton - can you, in simple terms explain the EXACT reason for the strike out, so other claimants can make sure that we can minimize the risk of being struck out?

 

it seems the judge penalized you for not realizing that the charges are unlawful, but how are you supposed to know that? we expect our banks to act lawfully, no?

 

The defence made it clear to the judge that the hearing wasn't to determine that the charges were unlawful, it was the fact that i had waited 8 years to start proceedings, the defence argument was that the charges should have been questioned at the time, and by not doing so should invoke the doctrine of laches.

 

To date no bank has had their charges judged unlawful in court. I don't think this is likely to happen.

 

As a layperson it's difficult to know how to proceed from here, but an Application for a rehearing could be made under order CCR 37.

 

Paul.

[itsamomentintime]

cant you say that, you were only made aware that the charges are unlawful in April 2006 (OFT report)?

 

also do you have any correspondance from the banks that state that the charges are not unlawful (i have from mine)? if you have, my opinion would be that you have challenged the lawfullness of the charges, only to be told that the bank isnt acting unlawfully - surely this would hold some weight?

[Guest bong]

Paul are you considering an appeal on the basis that the documents weren't submitted to you before the hearing?

[photoman]

paul, have you seen this interesting post by millymolly regards some research she has done on statute of limitations?

I like Molly's reference to section 61, and I also like section 52.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-491940.html

 

Best Regards

[paulwlton]

Paul are you considering an appeal on the basis that the documents weren't submitted to you before the hearing?

 

Yes but it wouldn't be an appeal as such, i would be asking for a rehearing.

[paulwlton]

cant you say that, you were only made aware that the charges are unlawful in April 2006 (OFT report)?

also do you have any correspondance from the banks that state that the charges are not unlawful (i have from mine)? if you have, my opinion would be that you have challenged the lawfullness of the charges, only to be told that the bank isnt acting unlawfully - surely this would hold some weight?

 

I stated my course of action was April 2006,

Like i've said the hearing wasn't to judge that the charges were lawful, and yes i have the banks letters stating that their charges are fair and reasonable. Even if the charges were ruled unlawful the defence will still pleed laches.

[Guest bong]

great stuff. does it make a difference?

 

out of curiosity did the judge have anything to say at the hearing about them springing this on you?

[paulwlton]

paul, have you seen this interesting post by millymolly regards some research she has done on statute of limitations?

I like Molly's reference to section 61, and I also like section 52.

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/post-491940.html

 

Best Regards

 

This would have been one of many responses to their defence, the current law on Limitation also states that not revealing is concealment, i refered to this in court.

[Guest bong]

Even if the charges were ruled unlawful the defence will still pleed latches.

 

this is interesting re. laches taken from a google search -admin.bardirectory.org/files/articles/16/laches.article.pdf

 

edit I'll try again - not sure if I duplicated that cut and paste - seemed a bit long!

[paulwlton]

bong this in simple terms is what the judge went on.

 

(1) Laches

9.14 The equitable doctrine of laches allows a defendant a defence where, because of

the delay by the plaintiff in asserting his rights,39 it would be unjust to allow the plaintiff a remedy.

[Guest bong]

Time Limits in Equity

The doctrine of laches does not apply where the law provides a limitation period. In that

event the claimant has the full period within which to launch proceedings. The defence of

laches is normally relevant, therefore, in two distinct situations. First, where the cause of

action arises at common law but equity affords a particular remedy, such as specific

performance, which is not available at common law. In these circumstances, the claimant will

lose his remedy if he delays unreasonably and fails to act promptly, often within a matter of

days or weeks. Secondly, laches may also be a defence where the cause of action arises

exclusively in equity and no statutory limitation period applies to the cause of action, e.g.

where the claimant seeks to set aside a transaction for undue influence, mistake or fraud.

Relief may also be refused in these circumstances on grounds of delay. But in these

circumstances the critical question is usually whether the claimant acted promptly after

becoming aware of his or her legal rights. If the claimant was ignorant of his or her right to

bring proceedings until years after the event, e.g. because he or she remained under the

influence of the wrongdoer or was wholly ignorant of the facts giving rise to the claim, the

claimant may not be barred from seeking relief, even years after the event

[Ron Baker]

(1) Laches

9.14 The equitable doctrine of laches allows a defendant a defence where, because of

the delay by the plaintiff in asserting his rights,39 it would be unjust to allow the plaintiff a remedy.

 

Its looking likely the judge in my case will be ruling in the same way,as i have just got a letter today asking why i believe it should not be statue barred after quoting section 32 within my submission.

The judge has given me 7days to sumbit further details.

Any advise would be welcome

 

Bong forgive me... are you saying that this Laches can be challanged and if so would you suggest i get that one in before the judge rules

 

Ron

[Glenn UK]

Paul

 

If you havent looked in here for a while i would suggest this link http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/3598-do-you-have-charges-30.html#post499917

 

If i have read it correctly this sorts out sec 32.1.c

 

HTH

 

Glenn

 

PS if ive got it wrong then please let me know.