Hearing to remove stay

[Castlebest]

If you read a lot of the judgments that have been handed down following appeal hearings (particularly Carlisle v Clydesdale) the review dates for the stays have been set for a period (typically 28 days) after the test case first instance judgment.

 

HH Judge Behrens (Carlisle v Clydesdale)

 

I take the view that the stay should only extend until the first instance decision of Mr Justice David Steel. It may be that there are appeals following the decision at first instance, but it does not, to my mind, at all follow that the mere fact that there is an appeal justifies a stay in other cases. I am not saying that if there are to be appeals that the court may not at a future stage think it appropriate to extend the stay, but in my view, at the moment there should only be a stay until after the end of the initial proceedings. I also take the view, because not everybody may be fully informed of the proceedings, that there should be a further case management conference in all of these cases within 28 days of the outcome of proceedings. hat seems to me to be the first term or length of the stay.

 

I read that to mean there may be a way forward at that time and the appeals may not have any effect on our claims.

 

As for the type of hearing you have I don't see why you shouldn't ask for a court hearing, the bank have now twice abused the telephone hearing, you can only ask .

 

pete

[Castlebest]

I think you can make it a bit more personal something like the following

 

 

Further to the Order made by District Judge Eynon on 11 January 2008 I am writing begging clarification on this order. I as a litigant in person, do not understand how the Defendant’s counsel spoke to the Judge on the day the Defendant failed to manage to organise the telephone hearing to include all of the parties as they were directed to do. I did write to the Judge and dropped my letter off by hand with the Ushers at the Court on the morning of the hearing to explain that I was fully aware of the hearing yet was still waiting to hear from the Defendant, who was supposed to be organising it.

 

I made the application to set aside the stay and cannot understand why the Defence has been allowed a further three month adjournment with no further discussions between the parties following their failure to follow the Courts Order.

 

Please do not misunderstand, I mean absolutely no disrespect nor am I questioning His Honors Order, I merely wish to understand how the Counsel of the Defendant was heard when I tried to contact the Court at 10.AM (the time of the hearing) on 8 January 2008 and was told we could not speak to the Judge?

 

I would also like to request, if it is at all possible, that the Court allow me to apply to vary this Order and make this a hearing in person at the Court as apposed another telephone hearing. This would mean that should the Defendant fail once more in its obligations at least I, the Claimants, will be able to speak directly to the Judge on this matter on the day.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

 

Penfold

[Castlebest]

he has reserved his and your position, i.e. he hasn't made any orders about costs but is obviously hoping you will come up with something to penalise them for messing about.

 

pete

[Castlebest]

That sounds hopefully Prabs if you cause them enough grief they might pay you just to get rid of you

 

pete

[Castlebest]

The only bright side to all of this is sooner or later your judge will get fed up with all of the messing about and do just that and DG will be forced to make you an offer .

 

thanks for the rep Prabs

 

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Hiya both, sorry I'm a bit late today just one point on the letter, I think it should be litigant in person not litigant in nature .

 

pete

[Castlebest]

Send it the judge can only say no

 

pete

[Castlebest]

I'll be interested to see pete's slant on this.......... he's usually such a serene diplomatic fellow........ laffin!!

 

Moi? :o I don't know what you mean

 

I'm a bit disappointed the OFT haven't appealed against the common law ruling in the first instance judgment but they have legal minds far superior to mine (I hope ).

 

The time scale of things is obviously concerning HH Justice Smith and therefor probably a good many other judges will have the same opinion that this could take longer than necessary.

 

I think this is an indication that the high court is starting to realise there is a danger that they are just being used by the banks to delay things, a very similar point of view many county court judges have in our own claims.

 

I think this is very significant though, quoted from the OFT's press release after Thursdays management hearing.

There will be a further hearing on 7, 8 9 July 2008 to determine whether the relevant terms in the Banks basic and historic personal current account contracts can also be assessed for fairness under the UTCCRs and whether they are capable of being penalties at common law.

These are the account agreements that most of our claims are based on, prior to the banks all trying to alter their terms and conditions last year before the test case was announced.

 

Again we wait and see

 

pete