Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[vjohn82]

He could be sleeping with the fishes

[patrickq1]

only if they made him an offer he cant refuse lol

[Desperate Daniella]

Hello Guest!

 

Are you watching and waiting for an update too?

[patrickq1]

aaww DD u frightened em off

[cymruambyth]

This has got to be the most watched but lacking up to date information thread on the site!

[DonkeyB]

Maybe he's reached a settlement that includes a clause of non-disclosure?

[cbrfan]

subbing

[vjohn82]

Maybe he's reached a settlement that includes a clause of non-disclosure?

 

Still odd not to be around the site though :?

[Desperate Daniella]

Even if he had signed a clause of non-disclosure I'm sure he'd be able to at least say that.

 

I'm sure he'll be in touch with an update when he can.

[Desperate Daniella]

Hi Guests,

 

Still no update.

[mystery1]

Still odd not to be around the site though :?

 

Odd that he has been awol for 10 days beforehand. Could be net/health issues or a deal.

 

M1

[means2anend]

This is a mystery mystery!

[cosalt]

Whilst it would be great to know, as long as Shakespear is ok / happy with the outcome, thats all that really matters.

[Desperate Daniella]

You are absolutely right, cosalt.

 

I'm sure shakey will give us an update soon and that there will be a good reason for the delay.

[shakespeare62]

Hello Folks !

Things are moving at a brisk pace, cannot say too much at this point. I will be keeping the details off this Thread for the time being, as will be explained in due course.

 

As it happens, it appears they also elected to print this whole CAG Thread out and use it against me in an attempt to increase their costs.

 

This was a breach of my Litigation Privilege. It also shows how desperate they are.

 

Matters from here on are strictly 'tactical'.

[vjohn82]

Nice to hear from your shakespeare62... we thought you were sleeping with the fishes!

 

I fully understand your issues pertaining to litigation privilege; this site is a self help forum where advice is freely shared. Too many solicitors believe that litigation should be a cloak and dagger exercise which, for all intents purposes, was not the aim of the CPR when they were introduced.

 

My only thought is that the "other side" are creating trouble for themselves because if they are using advice you have been given then they are admitting that they were completely aware of all of the flaws in their case.

 

All the best.

[paulwlton]

Hello Folks !

Things are moving at a brisk pace, cannot say too much at this point. I will be keeping the details off this Thread for the time being, as will be explained in due course.

 

As it happens, it appears they also elected to print this whole CAG Thread out and use it against me in an attempt to increase their costs.

 

This was a breach of my Litigation Privilege. It also shows how desperate they are.

 

Matters from here on are strictly 'tactical'.

 

I don't understand why a costs award would be higher because you have a thread on CAG.

 

Paul

[foolishgirl]

I don't understand why a costs award would be higher because you have a thread on CAG.

 

Maybe it's 'cos it takes them so long to read it. Perhaps they have to point with a finger to one word at a time.

[means2anend]

This all reminds me of the historical purposes as to why Lawyers used to speak in Latin.They want to 'OWN' the law and everything within it.

 

Realising now that forums such as this help the small person to take up their own case reduces their 'monopoly' of work- 'License To Print Money'

 

m2ae:mad:

[DonkeyB]

Ditto Shakey - glad you're still in the game.

 

Spot on analysis VJ - will be very interesting to see how this pans out, now that they cannot claim to be ignorant of any of the weaknesses in their claim.

 

If these muppets - like so many other muppets who try to intimidate and silence CAG - have to stoop to that level and are so unsure of their own case, then let's hope they get everything they deserve.

 

I don't see why or how they can add looking at your thread to their costs. This thread belongs to you and CAG, and its content is your own, privileged information. I feel a complaint to the SRA coming on...

[means2anend]

At a time when Insurance companies are moaning that the involvement of lawyers in accident claims 'no won no fee' and ATE insurance is too high and wasteful....that removing lawyers from the equation should result in a more efficient cost effective outcome,,,I should think that forums like this IF ANYTHING go to reduce the burden on the Government's budget for Legal Services and that the Master of Taxation as to costs would be receiving fewer and more reasonable invoices.

 

m2ae

[ScarletPimpernel]

Pishcon's behaviour is proof, if any were needed, that lawyers are like prostitutes - they'll say or do anything for their client if the money's right.

[patrickq1]

Hello Folks !

Things are moving at a brisk pace, cannot say too much at this point. I will be keeping the details off this Thread for the time being, as will be explained in due course.

 

As it happens, it appears they also elected to print this whole CAG Thread out and use it against me in an attempt to increase their costs.

 

This was a breach of my Litigation Privilege. It also shows how desperate they are.

 

Matters from here on are strictly 'tactical'.

dont you have litigation privelage ie if they wish to produce extrats from the forum they must have permission from cag......? just a thought with shakys disclaimer already written claiming privelage ...

[vjohn82]

The trouble with claiming "litigation privilege" is that it tends to only apply to "confidential" communications. This, being an open forum, is hard to qualify as "confidential".

 

It's better to argue that any sourcing of information outside of the parameters of normal disclosure is at the expense and time of the side sourcing it. You did not force them to look here; in fact any information gleaned from your open and transparent conduct is directly beneficial for the other side. Why should you be penalised for conducting yourself openly and honestly?

 

If only ALL litigation could be conducted under such a premise then I would suggest many cases could be avoided as a direct result of parties conducting an "cards on the table" approach and actually SAVE costs.

[cymruambyth]

Glad to hear that you are ok and still fighting. I look forward to reaing of your eventual success in the press!!!