Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[citizenB]

Anyone else got a problem opening the doc ?

 

Opened ok for me.

 

The fact is that the Barrister in one of the hearings wasnt quite sure it WAS the original if I recall. Wasnt this the reason you employed an Expert ?

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello CB!

 

The fact is that the Barrister in one of the hearings wasnt quite sure it WAS the original if I recall. Wasnt this the reason you employed an Expert ?

 

Exactly.

 

These muppets should bear the cost of the Expert, for playing their Cards so close to their chest...or up their sleeve should I say.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[shakespeare62]

Hello CB!

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

These muppets should bear the cost of the Expert, for playing their Cards so close to their chest...or up their sleeve should I say.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

You're perfectly right - their conduct and various inconsistencies are well documented. This includes includes slurs they made in open Court upon the integrity of my Expert and myself ,in fact their barrister received a verbal warning from the judge.

 

Basically the particular issue (the doc) would fall into 2 basic entities - liability and costs. Liability is one thing and which will be affected by the Default Notice issue, but costs would be affected by their conduct in this litigation - especially their failing to produce the evidence for nearly one year. Their conduct has already been commented on by at least one Circuit Judge already.

 

In the meantime, the Default Notice, ECHR issues and the unsuitability of penalty charge / unfair terms, for determination at Summary Judgment on this credit card are going to be argued out at Appeal. The background is that the claim remains fatally flawed.

Edited May 5, 2010 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

Ok folks - I'm adding a litigation privilege statement in the next post (Courtesy of cagger dad) for reference in my user signature. This is because the other party have previously attempted to misrepresent matters on here.

[shakespeare62]

Please note that the right to reproduce any part of any post I make on this forum is restricted under copyright law and litigation privilege

 

Please see the following copyright statement :-

 

This thread exists exclusively to assist me in preparing litigation against another party. As such it is almost certainly protected by litigation privilege.

 

The legal requirements for claiming litigation privilege are well established and are not in dispute. Communications between a solicitor or the client and a third party will be protected by litigation privilege where the communications are for the dominant purpose of obtaining legal advice in connection with, or conducting, litigation reasonably in prospect: Re Highgate Traders Limited [1984] BCLC 151.

 

Copyright Information: All information contained in this website, associated websites, and forum posts are copyright Reclaim The Right Ltd. If you wish to use the information on this site for publication elsewhere, then please email the administrators for permission.

Edited May 6, 2010 by shakespeare62

[citizenB]

Shakespeare, edit your first post in this thread, by copy and pasting your litigation privilige notice there as well

[Desperate Daniella]

That's a very good idea.

 

DDxx

[shakespeare62]

Shakespeare, edit your first post in this thread, by copy and pasting your litigation privilige notice there as well

 

Thanks

[means2anend]

Hello CB!

 

 

 

Exactly.

 

These muppets should bear the cost of the Expert, for playing their Cards so close to their chest...or up their sleeve should I say.

 

Cheers,

BRW

 

 

Opened ok for me too!

 

Yes

 

They are the 'Cause' of the cost.

 

m2ae

[shakespeare62]

Hello Folks !

 

In support of my Witness Statement (at post #982 ) :-

 

I've reinforced my Authorities Bundle to include case law from the Court of Appeal and House of Lords which both confirm s173(1) prevents contracting out of the provisions in the Act if it is not for the protection of the debtor.

 

The case law was served on Pishcon today and also filed in Court in person - the Court Staff updated my Authorities Bundle in front of me.

 

The case law details are in the attached doc.

Pishcon 13 May 2010.doc

[means2anend]

yep!

 

173. Contracting-out forbidden.

— (1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

(2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the [F1OFT] only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person’s consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability.

 

This could possibly used where O/c's pass around our agreements.I have not read the authorities yet but assume that they amount to this.

 

Dont be too specific S62-'Guests!!!!!'

 

m2ae

Edited May 14, 2010 by means2anend

[Desperate Daniella]

You are doing such a fantastic job here, Shakey. Absolutely brilliant stuff.

 

DD

[patrickq1]

HI Middenmess !

 

A hidden impression will be obtained from using ESDA (electro static detection analysis), basically a technique to detect any tiny impressions made on a document from say a pen, but which do not have ink on them, and which may not be visible to the naked eye. I think the technique uses tiny iron filings. It's often used to detect forgeries.

were a signature can be transposed from one peice of paper to another is an impression in anyone right thinking mind ...i fink

[patrickq1]

Lexology - Failure to disclose proves a costly mistake

[mystery1]

Lexology - Failure to disclose proves a costly mistake

 

Earles v Barclays Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 2500 (Mercantile) (08 October 2009)

 

M1

[shakespeare62]

yep!

 

173. Contracting-out forbidden.

— (1) A term contained in a regulated agreement or linked transaction, or in any other agreement relating to an actual or prospective regulated agreement or linked transaction, is void if, and to the extent that, it is inconsistent with a provision for the protection of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety contained in this Act or in any regulation made under this Act.

(2) Where a provision specifies the duty or liability of the debtor or hirer or his relative or any surety in certain circumstances, a term is inconsistent with that provision if it purports to impose, directly or indirectly, an additional duty or liability on him in those circumstances.

(3) Notwithstanding subsection (1), a provision of this Act under which a thing may be done in relation to any person on an order of the court or the [F1OFT] only shall not be taken to prevent its being done at any time with that person’s consent given at that time, but the refusal of such consent shall not give rise to any liability.

 

This could possibly used where O/c's pass around our agreements.I have not read the authorities yet but assume that they amount to this.

 

Dont be too specific S62-'Guests!!!!!'

 

m2ae

 

Interestingly, Amex were co-respondents in above Court of Appeal case which it lost.The Court of Appeal used s173(1) as part of its reasoning. Amex, sensibly did not join it's remaining co-respondents in appealing the decision to the House of Lords - where they lost again.

 

There was a second issue in which Amex were joined to OFT. That doesn't affect the above rulings.

Edited May 15, 2010 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

You are doing such a fantastic job here, Shakey. Absolutely brilliant stuff.

 

DD

 

Thanks DD - hope it helps others.

[shakespeare62]

Lexology - Failure to disclose proves a costly mistake

 

Earles v Barclays Bank Plc [2009] EWHC 2500 (Mercantile) (08 October 2009)

M1

 

This case was interesting. The Claimant - a Litigant in Person - lost the case entirely against the Bank and it's top notch firm of London Lawyers who came down on London Fees to Birmingham.

 

On costs however, the above loser was required to pay only 25% of the 150K of costs claimed. This was due to the banks conduct on failing to disclose for two years and also for claiming disproportionate costs etc. by using Barristers on London rates in a provincial Court.

 

That case is a potentially useful reference - with the caveat in latin that I'm "Non gratum anus rodentum" - (lit - 'Not worth a rats a**')

Edited May 15, 2010 by shakespeare62

[patrickq1]

glad its of a little bit of use lol rats a*s i like it will put that on my advice to HFO the company that is "Non gratum anus rodentum" hehe

[Antonio&Shylock]

I will update as things progress. The next hearing date is 25th May.

 

 

Shakey

 

Good luck with the above, though I'm thinking they've really picked a fight with the wrong guy frankly.

 

Cheers

 

Antonio

[johnjohn6767]

Subbing,

 

Good luck.

[Yeats]

Good Luck Shakey.

[banker_rhymes_with]

Hello shakespeare62!

 

The very best of British to you.

 

Watch out for their usual tricks as you enter Court, and expect some desperate moves when in Court.

 

Let us hope you get a fair and impartial Judge.

 

Given the clear facts, let us hope that the next Judge has taken careful note of the astute comments already made by his/her fellow Circuit Judges who handled the Appeal thus far.

 

Cheers,

BRW

[vjohn82]

All the best... will be eagerly awaiting the next instalment of this saga and I'm sure you will be prepared for it

[Desperate Daniella]

All the luck in the world for tomorrow. Unless the judge deliberately ignores the evidence and the law you should win.

 

Love,

DDxx