Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[gh2008]

...which is becoming increasingly all but too often. We should be protected by some sort of legal privilege to a certain extent as many people are simply seeking legal advice.

 

There was a post from Dad on here recently saying exactly that .....

 

Maybe we all start nee to include our thread as part of the court bundle

 

IMHO it just shows desperation and it would seem that the Judge, in this case, agreed.

 

It can also work against the other side - if they show themselves to know the other side's arguments fully yet still insist on taking it to the end then it will backfire on them - possibly opening themselves up to costs on an indemnity basis - as in BOS -v- Mitchell ...... BOS discontinued very late following a set-aside (on a £15k card debt) and then got hit with £15+ costs for not dropping the case earlier (it was a unenforceable agreement under s.127(3)).

11. Finally, I have to consider whether the costs of the defendant should be assessed on the standard or on the indemnity basis. In my judgment the assessment should be on the indemnity basis. The only realistic view of what has happened is that the bank has surrendered on a straightforward point of law, to which it has on several occasions been alerted by the defendant or his solicitors. A large commercial enterprise which proceeds with litigation in the face of warning signs of the kind which were erected here, adopts a high risk strategy. The point in question was a simple one. There was no relevant controversy as to the evidence. To choose to abandon the claim on the very day of the hearing is doing a serious disservice to the efficient administration of justice, and comes very close to constituting an abuse of process. At the very least, the bank’s conduct of the litigation falls comfortably within the range of cases in which, on the modern authorities, an assessment of costs on the indemnity basis is appropriate.

[vjohn82]

There was a post from Dad on here recently saying exactly that .....

 

Maybe we all start nee to include our thread as part of the court bundle

 

IMHO it just shows desperation and it would seem that the Judge, in this case, agreed.

 

It can also work against the other side - if they show themselves to know the other side's arguments fully yet still insist on taking it to the end then it will backfire on them - possibly opening themselves up to costs on an indemnity basis - as in BOS -v- Mitchell ...... BOS discontinued very late following a set-aside (on a £15k card debt) and then got hit with £15+ costs for not dropping the case earlier (it was a unenforceable agreement under s.127(3)).

 

Do you have the full citation for the Mitchell case? I thought I had it somewhere but I can't find it.

[shakespeare62]

Do you have the full citation for the Mitchell case? I thought I had it somewhere but I can't find it.

 

Hi Vjohn - A copy of it is currently viewable here,

 

'Which reminds me, I'd better take a copy of it with me on the day for reference - in case these muppets try and pull a similar stunt.

Edited March 15, 2010 by shakespeare62

[vjohn82]

Nice one... I just found it literally before you posted it

 

I checked my Witness Statement that I have used for my costs hearing on the 19th May and realised I actually used the case in my arguments...

 

I'm impressed by the Judge's summing up of the discontinuance to be honest.

[dad]

'Which reminds me, I'd better take a copy of it with me on the day for reference - in case these muppets try and pull a similar stunt.

 

This CoA judgment on LiP costs is also useful to bring along. In short judge at trial awarded £120 LiP costs, the CoA raised this to just over £10,000.

 

Wulfsohn, R (on the application of) v Legal Service Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 250 (8 February 2002)

 

HTH

 

Dad

[gh2008]

and a copy of the order (which was/is in the public domain)

BOS v Mitchell and costs.pdf

[shakespeare62]

and a copy of the order (which was/is in the public domain)

 

Brilliant thanks 'GH

[shakespeare62]

This CoA judgment on LiP costs is also useful to bring along. In short judge at trial awarded £120 LiP costs, the CoA raised this to just over £10,000.

 

Wulfsohn, R (on the application of) v Legal Service Commission [2002] EWCA Civ 250 (8 February 2002)

 

HTH

 

Dad

 

Cheers dad. Here's to hoping I get the same judge.

[citizenB]

Comments from surfaceagentx20 regarding the opposition's bleatings in respect of CAGers obtaining assistance from the internet

 

The letter below was I believe in response to a letter from Restons where their proof reader dropped them right in it. The letter suggested that the defence was "effective" rather than "INeffective" Had us all laughing for days

 

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/show-post/post-1784624.html

Dear Sir,

 

The Defence has indeed been produced with the benefit of assistance available via a consumer advice website, though I would contend that fact would only be clear to someone such as yourself who makes it their business to patrol such websites. Further, I take exception to your remarks that it is inappropriate of me to avail myself of the assistance afforded by a consumer advice website, albeit effective as you say, and I likewise take exception to your claim that the delivery of the Defence is intended to frustrate the legal process. On the contrary, the Defence serves to highlight the deficiencies in your client’s case and I note you do not embellish your suggestion that the Defence lacks any basis in law.

 

If it is your intention to maintain this suggestion I should be pleased if you would kindly explain what aspects of your claim have not been met with an arguable Defence and why. Subject to receipt of your reasoned argument I will give consideration to your suggestion I should withdraw. Meantime, if in light of what I say your client believes it would be in their interests to make a proposal to me for the settlement of the claim I should be very interested to receive it.

 

Yours etc

 

x20

 

My reaction to the "you copied the POC/SOC/etc from a website" is that the fact that POCs/SOcs/etc exist on a website is evidence of the bank's unlawfulness/unreasonableness/notoriety [delete as appropriate]

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello CB!

 

Comments from surfaceagentx20 regarding the opposition's bleatings in respect of CAGers obtaining assistance from the internet

I think it's also worth pointing out that CAG now has over 250,000 members, and probably five times that in terms of guests who read what goes on here to help and advise them.

 

Given that Guests often exceed the number of Caggers on-line at any one time by a large margin, the true readership of CAG is arguably significantly greater than the membership numbers suggest.

 

My point being, we are now talking about a clear percentage of the Adult UK Population who have visited, or who regularly visit CAG.

 

That should rubbish any accusations that CAG is some tiny hotspot of rouge Debtors.

 

Cheers,

BRW

Edited March 16, 2010 by banker_rhymes_with
Tripe-O

[dp77]

Judge Langan in Bos v Mitchell seems a proper judge, not one of these whey faced old boy claimant lapdogs that infest the county courts.

 

Can we clone him?

 

@ Shakey - was today the deadline for MdR to submit the document to your expert? Or have I had, yet another, senior moment?

[patrickq1]

A Senior Moment Looks Like U Gotta Join Me N Sparkie In Twilight Zone We Is Drinkin Cask Ales 12% Proof He He

[johnerog]

A Senior Moment Looks Like U Gotta Join Me N Sparkie In Twilight Zone We Is Drinkin Cask Ales 12% Proof He He

 

I think its drinking in the twilight zone with you two that got me in this state in the first place. I luuuv youu I do!!!!!!!

 

 

Where am I, who are you!!

[patrickq1]

OH DEAR we aint come out yet john ....sssshhh lol

you've had too many outta the cask...sparkie help we got a loose cannon onboard ship lol

patrickq1

[shakespeare62]

Judge Langan in Bos v Mitchell seems a proper judge, not one of these whey faced old boy claimant lapdogs that infest the county courts.

 

Can we clone him?

 

@ Shakey - was today the deadline for MdR to submit the document to your expert? Or have I had, yet another, senior moment?

 

Tomorrow...

[shakespeare62]

 

This could be a Lady Diana Memorial Fund moment for Amex, when it dawns on them that their expensive lawyers are superbly capable of making even more expensive mistakes...and charging them for the privilege.

 

It may appear they are willing to advise their client to carry on to the end - so long as they get paid, they'll milk the lawsuit for all it's worth. History repeats itself.

Edited March 18, 2010 by shakespeare62

[diddydicky]

shaky, the ONLY way you can lose this is if the expert does not find what he is looking for!! and i some how doubt that you would have gone this far if you were not on solid ground

[gezwee]

Tomorrow...

 

Assume that means it hasnt appeared just yet?

[shakespeare62]

shaky, the ONLY way you can lose this is if the expert does not find what he is looking for!! and i some how doubt that you would have gone this far if you were not on solid ground

 

They risk losing this Appeal, if not on one issue, then on the other. A precedent may be only 1 hearing away.

[shakespeare62]

Assume that means it hasnt appeared just yet?

 

correct.

[gezwee]

Sorry S62, but I still have this nagging doubt that you'll ever see the 'agreement' again...... if its tainted in any way and the other sides counsel doubt its authenticity I think it may be end up shuffled off to the shredder.

 

With the 19th as a deadline and the other side so sure of their position you'd think this would have been in an envelope and posted special delivery within a day of receiving the order.

 

Don't suppose they'd give you the PO tracking number in the morning if you asked nicely would they?

[patrickq1]

if it don’t turn up cost plus ask for a continuance as you refuse to accept their discontinuance...go for it vexatious litigation ,damages ,and last but not least demand the document they produced for the court was at least dies honest in its making and designed to perverting the course of justice think this judge will relish the task of dressing down all involved and may remind them that perjury can carry a hefty prison sentence....I want to book my front seat now dude he he

Edited March 18, 2010 by patrickq1

[patrickq1]

please ignore my spelling mistakes

[cab1ne]

please ignore my spelling mistakes

 

perferting the course of justce

 

abzalootlee luv it;-)

 

cab

[dp77]

In my (very unexpert) opinion there is no chance of this document arriving for forensic examination, none whatsoever. I've seen a similar document to the one at issue here and I know exactly what the expert would determine.

 

We will see tomorrow, but I cannot see it arriving.