Solicitor/negligence claim:

[BazzaS]

It did end up fast-track

 

My mistake. That is, my mistake in actually believing what you had posted! (on 6th June)

 

Court have stated case listed for multi-track, so a defence must be sent with subsequent Directions questionnaire?

 

So, it (apparently) was listed for multi-track. Did you actually note that it had then been re-listed for fast-track, or have you got yourself confused as to terminology?.

[BazzaS]

1) The OP has previously said that he has no property they could obtain a charging order over. He didn't seem too bothered about the risk of costs.

 

While the OP has no assets, the D will have difficulty enforcing any award.

Mind you, that may not stop them going for a CCJ, and seeking the OP being brought to court for questioning as to his income and assets.

 

Whilst the OP has no assets, "you can't get blood from a stone". Mind you, if the OP then came into possession of an asset, the judgment creditor could then seek to enforce against it (even if the CCJ was more than 6 years old, just if it was over 6 years old they'd need permission of the court. "Didn't have assets before when brought to court for questioning, does now" ; would likely be granted permission to enforce.)

[SuperVillain]

While the OP has no assets, the D will have difficulty enforcing any award.

Mind you, that may not stop them going for a CCJ, and seeking the OP being brought to court for questioning as to his income and assets.

 

Whilst the OP has no assets, "you can't get blood from a stone". Mind you, if the OP then came into possession of an asset, the judgment creditor could then seek to enforce against it (even if the CCJ was more than 6 years old, just if it was over 6 years old they'd need permission of the court. "Didn't have assets before when brought to court for questioning, does now" ; would likely be granted permission to enforce.)

 

Indeed...

[callum1999]

Indeed...

 

You are only allowed to recover legal costs, if those costs have been incurred in a proper and legitimate manner.

 

As with the solicitor that they are representing, they may well have been incurred, and look good on paper, but the paper that it has been written on would be more than what they actually can or could receive.

 

Easiest thing in the world is to incur legal costs, but its how those costs were incurred, that will ultimately prove both solicitors and their firms will not be owed, one single penny, quite the reverse.

[SuperVillain]

You are only allowed to recover legal costs, if those costs have been incurred in a proper and legitimate manner.

 

As with the solicitor that they are representing, they may well have been incurred, and look good on paper, but the paper that it has been written on would be more than what they actually can or could receive.

 

Easiest thing in the world is to incur legal costs, but its how those costs were incurred, that will ultimately prove both solicitors and their firms will not be owed, one single penny, quite the reverse.

 

They will be owed if the Court orders it so Callum.

 

Whether or not the Defendants/Respondents will actually get what the Court orders they are entitled to, is another matter it seems.

[honeybee13]

Did you file your appeal today, Callum?

 

HB

[callum1999]

Did you file your appeal today, Callum?

 

HB

 

[callum1999]

Contempt of Court application under Rule 32.14 to follow, looking positive tbh...

[Ganymede]

 

Is that a yes you did?!

 

On what legal grounds did you base your appeal?

[Ganymede]

Contempt of Court application under Rule 32.14 to follow, looking positive tbh...

 

What contempt?! Against who?

[callum1999]

What contempt?! Against who?

 

Against the original solicitor, he gave evidence and under a statement of truth, that was used to secure a claim being thrown out.

 

And before anyone asks, yes i have the proof, more to the point, there has been no evidence as to suggest or would now show, it is beyond any reasonable doubt.

 

Whilst i accept the burden of proof will be for me to show the solicitor is now in contempt of court, all reasonable measures and opportunities prior to this happening were ignored, so its not as if i am alleging, the ignorance to produce or order the proof have now been exhausted.

[Ganymede]

What evidence did he give under a statement of truth?

[callum1999]

What evidence did he give under a statement of truth?

 

Quite a lot, enough to influence a judgement in a civil court.

 

Would the solicitor had been so confident or as eager to repeat the same fete, if the circumstances or the protection as to rely/defend or influence a decision, was taking out of his hands, i very much doubt, to much of a risk imo.

[Ganymede]

Quite a lot, enough to influence a judgement in a civil court.

 

 

Can you be very specific please?

[callum1999]

Can you be very specific please?

 

Yes of course, the funding, or lack of funding that would/should or could have been in place for a legitimate contract to be in place as to represent or make representation to rely on a defence, if the representation was challenged, say for instance, if the DPA was breached, or alleged to have been breached.

 

A claim for professional negligence on the same basis, is already subject to that assumption, will will now see if that assumption has any substance.

[callum1999]

ILLEGITIMATE CONTRACT.

 

Legally representing a client with one, how does the legal system both civil and criminal per see or act if there is evidence to suggest a valid contract, being alleged, is later established as being an Illegitimate contract??

 

As always any help would be appreciated..

[callum1999]

Work carried out under the Legal Help scheme under CW1, provisions.

 

When is payment recoverable from Legal Aid?, before legal aid is refused, or after legal aid is refused on application from a solicitor for further funding.

[honeybee13]

Hello Callum.

 

I expect people will be along later to comment.

 

I think it would be helpful to know if you submitted your appeal and what you said please. Otherwise the advice you're asking for could be of useless.

 

Please help us to advise you.

 

HB

[callum1999]

Hello Callum.

 

I expect people will be along later to comment.

 

I think it would be helpful to know if you submitted your appeal and what you said please. Otherwise the advice you're asking for could be of useless.

 

Please help us to advise you.

 

HB

 

Hi HB,

 

I have previously stated the grounds on which an appeal should be based on, however with not wanting to amend or add to an appeal, as to risk evidence not being considered i need to know whether or not the solicitor was acting under the correct contract for him or his company to act, on my behalf.

 

For a contract to be initiated there would have been funding in place, public or private.

 

They are saying the contract was initiated by public funding, but they are the only ones who are claiming this, and all the evidence and request for the solicitor to proof, what is a significant fact, would suggest otherwise.

 

If what they are claiming is indeed correct, they are in effect now breaching the DPA in failing to provide the personal data to show this was the case, that is not me just saying this for the sake of it, the ICO are adamant that this has now be deemed a breach which they are now investigating and a case worker assigned to deal with the breach.

 

All i want to know that after Shelter closed their case under the CW1, and referred it onto to a face to face meeting with the solicitor, would (a) public funding be recovered by the solicitor for that initial meeting (b) If so, when would the bill be sent for payments? © Would LA have data to show this, which they are currently denying and have no trace of request or payments made to the firm.

 

IF as the solicitor has alleged and in evidence that he represented me on public funding, and there is no proof of this, the contract or any initial funding needed to trigger a legitimate solicitor/client contract could not have been possibly agreed and would make any contract claiming the complete opposite would in any case, be deemed an Illegitimate contract that has not only been used to represent me, but also pleaded in ongoing civil proceedings.

 

If the contract was never a valid contract, the game is up, i would have assumed.

 

There was no contract, if there was, it was merely a fabricated contract, as the evidence stands today..

[callum1999]

The other-side could argue and i am assuming a defence and on what the retainer letter set out would be one that would normally be reserved for a fee paying client, the terms, WITH THE MEANS to satisfy the terms of the retainer, that was never the case though.

[callum1999]

Any help on the the merits the original contract and its worth would be appreciated.

[Ganymede]

I would say it's impossible to advise unless you are able to scan and post a copy of all the initial paperwork you signed such as the retainer, terms and conditions, contract etc etc.

[woad]

Is this for the appeal or the contempt of court action???

 

Might help if you posted in plain English, rather than attempting to write in 'legalese', as your sentences end up convoluted and difficult to understand.

[steampowered]

I don't really understand what point you are making with regards to the contract, to be honest.

 

You instructed the solicitor so there was surely a contract in place, written or not. I don't really understand the relevance of the funding.

 

In any event it is too late to start raising issues on appeal if they were not originally in your particulars of claim.

[callum1999]

I would say it's impossible to advise unless you are able to scan and post a copy of all the initial paperwork you signed such as the retainer, terms and conditions, contract etc etc.

 

The solicitor and his legal advisers are refusing to proof the original (initial) paperwork that i would have signed, which the Information Commissionaires Office are stating is breaching Data Protection.

 

They have in evidence and after a request was made for further information on the defence under CPR 18 when asked how the case was funded, have in reply stated the funding used to legally represent was public funding, and under the Legal Help at Court scheme.

 

For this to be the case, a LA form CW1 would have been completed, but again, the solicitor is refusing to proof this document, which again the Information Commissionaires Office have stated is a breach of providing Data on request.