Shakespeare62 - v - a NastyBank

[toto003]

subbing

[shakespeare62]

Well folks, heard nothing yet, in the meantime I've lodged a formal complaint against the Court this morning for possible negligence etc. in managing my case - see attachment below.

 

'Shakey,

 

Ps Thanks for all your comments - they are much appreciated.

Court Letter Complaint 10 June 09.doc

Edited June 10, 2009 by shakespeare62
edited typos

[shakespeare62]

The Court have acknowledge receipt of my complaint (that was quick !), and stated that I should receive a written reply within 10 working days.

 

What I will want to know (among other things) is, why did the DDJ proceed with the hearing when he was missing my Witness Statement and 15 important exhibits ?

 

Why did he wait until the end of the hearing to inform me that he didn’t have my Witness Statement and Exhibits ?

[shakespeare62]

If the Deputy District Judge had read the Court file beforehand, it would have been clear from the cover letters to the Court Manager that I had listed the Witness Statement and other docs, also I had specifically requested the Court Manager in those letters to be sure that the Judge had all the filed documents for use at the hearing on 5th June.

 

Surely he should have said “Shakespeare62, I don’t have your Witness Statement and 15 Exhibits is it ok with you to proceed to day or shall we adjourn ?”

 

This surely comes back to the overriding objective CPR 1.1(2) (a) dealing with a case justly and “ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing; “ Having the Claimants Witness Statement, but not mine (through the Courts negligence) hardly places me on an equal footing....

 

We're talking about an hour of Open Court time when they don't have my documents.

[car2403]

I fear the response will be "this is a judicial decision - appeal if you think it necessary" or something along those lines.

 

of course, there's more you can do with a complaint to the Court that isn't resolved

[the_shadow]

The Court have acknowledge receipt of my complaint (that was quick !), and stated that I should receive a written reply within 10 working days.

 

What I will want to know (among other things) is, why did the DDJ proceed with the hearing when he was missing my Witness Statement and 15 important exhibits ?

 

Why did he wait until the end of the hearing to inform me that he didn’t have my Witness Statement and Exhibits ?

 

 

Does the fact that the judge reserved judgment remove the prejudice involved in not reading/having your witness statement and exhibits prior and during the hearing?

 

Could it not be argued that by reserving judgment he was allowing himself the opportunity to read the statement and exhibits and then make an informed decision?

 

To counter that though obviously without these documents your case was weakened IN the hearing as the judge was unable to ask questions of both you and the claimant in regards to the documents.

 

Would have thought grounds of appeal here if he does decide against you.

 

S.

[shakespeare62]

To counter that though obviously without these documents your case was weakened IN the hearing as the judge was unable to ask questions of both you and the claimant in regards to the documents.

 

Would have thought grounds of appeal here if he does decide against you.

 

I would have thought so - Court Management Issues....+ other grounds.

Edited June 11, 2009 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

I fear the response will be "this is a judicial decision - appeal if you think it necessary" or something along those lines.

 

yes ...except the complaint itself is focused on the Court failure to manage key documents, so I hope it investigates that properly..

Edited June 11, 2009 by shakespeare62

[shakespeare62]

Well - it's been 21 days now since the Summary Judgment Hearing on 5th June and still no Judgement received ....

 

When I called the Court 10 days ago it confirmed the same. I'll folllow up the Court on Monday.

[I've got no money]

I'm not massively surprised - it was a part time judge - he may not have sent his judgment to the court yet... all you can do is see what the court office say.

[WelshMam2009]

Link is this one to petition...

 

Petition to: Stop Charging Orders being used to turn Unsecured DEBT into Secured DEBT. | Number10.gov.uk

 

 

 

Link to CAB report is here...

 

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/press_20090625

Edited June 29, 2009 by WelshMam2009
2nd link added for info

[shakespeare62]

Been over a month now - and still no Judgement. I called the Court Office today, apparently they've requested the file back from the judge once already & they'll request it again at the end of the week ..

 

Can't be that hard surely ? I believe the criteria for SJ (according to case law from the House of Lords and Court of Appeal) - is whether the Defence is fanciful or devoid of reality...

[r&b]

Can't be that hard surely ? I believe the criteria for SJ (according to case law from the House of Lords and Court of Appeal) - is whether the Defence is fanciful or devoid of reality...

 

 

u got that to hand shakey? that could come in handy for my SJ hearing.

cheers

[I've got no money]

Been over a month now - and still no Judgement. I called the Court Office today, apparently they've requested the file back from the judge once already & they'll request it again at the end of the week ..

 

.

 

It is now starting to take the proverbial - the DDJ should have made a decision by now...he's probably gone on holiday...

[shakespeare62]

u got that to hand shakey? that could come in handy for my SJ hearing.

cheers

[begin quote]

"The Learned Judge erred in Law in that:-

 

1. Notwithstanding that this matter was in respect of an application for summary judgment, the Judge fell into the error of regarding himself as being under a duty and upon the evidence before him, to resolve the issue as to whether the agreement and default notice contained the terms prescribed by statute - as opposed to examining the evidence for the more limited purpose as to whether the prospects of a successful Defence were realistic rather than fanciful.

 

2. The test under CPR 24.2 is whether the prospects of success is realistic rather than fanciful; the court should consider the evidence which can reasonably be expected to be available at trial - or the lack of it: Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond [2001] EWCA Civ 550;

 

3. The duty of a judge hearing such an application is to assess the prospects of success of the relevant party, the criterion being not one of probability but the absence of reality: Three Rivers District Council v Bank of England (No.3) [2001] UKHL 16 per Lord Hope.

 

[end-quote]

 

[car2403]

It is now starting to take the proverbial - the DDJ should have made a decision by now...he's probably gone on holiday...

 

Or playing golf!

[shakespeare62]

It is now starting to take the proverbial - the DDJ should have made a decision by now...he's probably gone on holiday...

That's what I was wondering ....

[r&b]

thanks shakey appreciate it, sry to b a pain but what case/appeal is that from do u know offhand?

[shakespeare62]

thanks shakey appreciate it, sry to b a pain but what case/appeal is that from do u know offhand?

 

Sure - links to the cases are here :-

 

Royal Brompton Hospital National Health Service Trust v Hammond & Ors [2001] EWCA Civ 550 (11 April 2001)

 

Three Rivers District Council v. Governor and Company of The Bank of England [2001] UKHL 16; [2001] 2 All ER 513 (22nd March, 2001)

 

BTW, the above cases were quoted by an enlightened DJ to bin a Summary Judgment Application - for Amex no less.

[r&b]

excellent ill put em up on my thread for ref

thanks for the help .

[shakespeare62]

In the case of 3 rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England [2001] UKHL 16, check out Lord Hobhouse of WoodBorough, section 158, last para (4 lines before section 159) :-

 

"The criterion which the judge has to apply under Part 24 is not one of probability; it is absence of reality."

[r&b]

In the case of 3 rivers District Council v Governor and Company of the Bank of England [2001] UKHL 16, check out Lord Hobhouse of WoodBorough, section 158, last para (4 lines before section 159) :-

 

"The criterion which the judge has to apply under Part 24 is not one of probability; it is absence of reality."

 

 

cheers shakey all ref'd. appreciate ur time n thread space.

[shakespeare62]

you're welcome.

[shakespeare62]

Right folks, this matter has been dragging on for too long :

 

It's been over 4 months now since the Summary Judgment Hearing and still no formal handown of judgment.

 

So I've sent the Court the letter below.

Tape Request.doc

[shakespeare62]

On the basis that Summary Judgment should only be awarded in cases which are devoid of reality – I just wonder what the problem is.