DO NOT post anything that will grant the enemy advanced warning is what i am saying..... why would we do that? Would a solicitor send the other side letter in advance saying 'you are wrong because'? no they would not we know beyond any shadow of a doubt that CWD are reading these board (hello - hope you sleep at night) why would we then want to signal a defence we dont want to do that. we can pose questions of corse.... bt be very wary.... They are not very good at this and need all the help they can get

And therein hangs a problem. People have already disclosed to you how using this site is damaging them at court.. it shouldnt be the case but it is People inadvertently upload all kinds of things which should not be placed in a public domain, or worse, they signal intent at defence which CWD then jump upon and are therefore prepared.... cant you see that? CAG is brilliant.... but lets not do their work for them.

Were i you i would immediately remove my attachments... send them privately if you so wish to those requesting.

Your terms and condition have the banks signature not yours

Claiming Interest.... that is Interesting..... will inform separately (CAG certain things do not need to be Public.... it tips CWD hand) Suffice to say that interest is Haram under Sharia Law... CWD have expressly used the term interest. Uk doesnt have a bilateral treaty with UAE but the EU does. The EU does not.

Just so you know..... the Limitation period in the UAE for bounced cheques is 3 years. Given that the majority of the cases being brought to the UK are off the back of such action, or in absence of such action, that is a rather powerful argument. Enjoy.

This is from stepchange as I understand. They simply refer you to CAB or a Solicitor for international debt and do not advise. Jurisdiction should not be left to individual judges to decide.

Sadly, I do not think she has. She (The judge) has made a 'wrong call' based upon the 'authority' that was presented by CWD and not challenged. Because a litigant in person does not know how or what to do. That is why it is unjust But she has followed 11. The issue will be of consent to Jurisdiction.... which can be challenged. (not looking for an argument here by the way.... )

Andy.... kicking this around isnt the fact that it is being tried under UAE Laws and not UK.... just under UK Jurisdiction? What of the risk of parallel proceedings? What of the fact that the UAE may have kicked off proceeding already in criminal courts? (Hornsey you will need to establish that they have ...) What of the fact that the UAE criminalises debt? What of the fact that UK Judgements are unlikely to be upheld in the UAE ? What of Public Policy? ibid: "The law relating to the enforcement of foreign judgements and the law relating to international insolvency are not areas of law which have in recent times been left to be developed by judge-made law." CWD are shrewd... but must be outed.

You must defend against the additional costs as a minimum. Iam sure people here will assist you in that.

Thank you for taking the time to share everything..it must be really hard after such a shitty day. And don't give up. Especially given the fact that they have added so many charges to the original debt. You have all the protections of the law on your side moving forwards. It is not the best decision a judge has ever made.

I think that they mean that part of the cut was the cag 200.00

Sadly, the courts do not appear to care how people are treated. Jurisdiction should not be left to a judge to decide on a local level. We need to wait for full update from Hornsey

Illegitimi non carborundum

Not necessarily. Aside of which you only ever signed an application not an agreement..... WHERE is the expert witness statement that states the T&C re therefore binding in UAE Law? OH? There isnt an expert witness. Dont get too bogged down. Ask the judge if he is happy and competent to recognise UAE law in the UK (Given its subjection ) That is what CWD want you to believe

That is their game.... stay strong. Here is another little ditty The Civil Procedure Rules Part 74 and the Foreign Judgements (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933. These reference enforcement of foreign judgements in a number of scenarios but the emphasis is on enforcing a Judgement. There has been no foreign judgement. They cannot rely upon such.

This sounds a little odd, but the next time there is a case we should get advanced notice of the date and time.... and ensure there is a MASSIVE presence outside of court from all of those being hounded by these people.

If No directions given by court then these actions on the Eve of the hearing ARE Contentious.

Did you have any opportunity to dig deep on this action when the Bank clearly state that the debt has been written off?

Outrageous. These are bullying tactics. (familiar with them) Did the court give any directions? This is in my view extremely contentious that they should send these at his time. Nevertheless they have. The amending witness statement costs is a total joke... If no directions wee given then it was their choice to draft the first set. As Andy says stick by your Guns.... the biggest gun in the room is the judge.... I would be tempted if the opportunity arises though to expose these grotesque tactics.... but do so in a calm way. Finally. Prepare your own costs statement.

Do you people know that it is against the UAE Central Banks Laws for Banks to take blank cheques? Specifically, Article 15, Section B of UAE Central Bank regulations NoUAE banks violating blank cheque regulations.pdf.29/2011, states that: “Banks and finance companies are prohibited from taking blank cheques for granting loans or overdraft facilities, or for issuing credit cards.” Prohibited = Forbidden This has been the case since 2011. This may shed some light on why UAE Banks do not press for judgements in the UAE. Because they know if they have subsequently used such cheques/security to press criminal charges, they have breached UAE Law... (reliance on such in a UAE Court would be foolish however... each a law to their own) Attempting to then use the UK courts, albeit that the matter should be heard under UAE law, is somewhat underhand. Not something CWD would share with you... or are likely to have worked out given they are pathetic. This automatically creates a dispute..... even if you have signed such a cheque.... I have attached an article and the UAE Central Bank regulations are an easy google. Have fun.

Indeed. That is the word i was looking for. Though I am not sure that you are correct on your statements. vexatious litigants can be individuals. Hard to make stick though.

Are not CWD close to being what is termed as vociferous litigants? for example : I know of several current cases which they are involved in that are dependent upon the views of an expert witness? That has to be paid for? You would think that responsible solicitors would be awaiting outcomes before proceeding with other actions? They really are a bunch o debt chasers with no moral or legal compass. Following this with interest. If I can add any intel from my own dealings i shall do so.

Newbie but interested in how you are getting on Mo. Any updates? seems to be a lot of threads on here but no final solutions