Defense struck out by judge .... what next?*** All Read***

[Magic Pockets]

Hi there. Sound slike an awsome result!

 

Could you post (or pm) the case number so we can reference your case in our hearing when Natwest post their defence (probably the same one!)

 

Cheers and well done again!

[thereshope!]

Brilliant Kelly !

 

I'm getting all giddy lol !!!!!

 

Maybe ,just maybe this will happen to me !

(well nowt wrong with being optomistic lol)

 

Hope xx

[Movingon]

Hi there. Sound slike an awsome result!

 

Could you post (or pm) the case number so we can reference your case in our hearing when Natwest post their defence (probably the same one!)

 

Cheers and well done again!

 

You cannot refer to other Small Claims cases in your Claim. They have no Authority.

[hagenuk]

You cannot refer to other Small Claims cases in your Claim. They have no Authority.

 

No, you may not refer to them per se, but you can ask that the Judge take into account any "local knowledge" he may have.

 

According to Mullen v Hackney London Borough Council [1997] 1 WLR 1103 (CA) which has been referred too in some bank charge cases so far, a Judge may make an order based on the conduct of the Defendant which is known to him.

 

In the above case it was decided that

 

(1) Courts may take judicial notice of matters which are so notorious or clearly established or susceptible of demonstration by reference to a readily obtainable and authoritative source, that evidence of their existence is unnecessary. Judges have a wide discretion and may notice much that they are not required to notice, such notice being in some cases conclusive and in others prima facie and rebuttable.

 

(2) A judge can rely on his own local knowledge, as long as he does so properly and within reasonable limits, and as long as that knowledge is general in character and not liable to be varied by the specific characteristics of the particular case. Judges using such knowledge were to be regarded as fulfilling a constitutional function.

 

(3) Applying these principles to the present case, the judge was entitled to take Judicial Notice of his special or local knowledge of how the appellant had conducted itself in relation to undertakings given in similar cases.

 

(4) The facts noticeable were relevant in deciding the appropriate sanction.

[fbnts]

Hi great news! what has to be done to get them to consider striking out a defence? Do you have to apply or is it a decision by the judge upon reading the case notes?

 

I ask as CapitalOne has just submitted a defence to my claim and the only bits we have not reached agreement on the default notice, and their defence for that point appears very sparse, and not really a defence.

 

Tom

[iconoclash]

Hi - this is good news - we have a claim in front of the judge who will be deciding for a hearing I guess, claim against Lloyds which they SAY they will be defending - is it possible to mention this 'abuse of process' on their part in our AQ when it arrives?

[carol1966]

well done great stuff I am just starting to go for over £5000 charges from the clydesdale bank, in process of sending letter before action but terrifed as I stay in scotland what do you think my chances are??

[stevepm]

Kelly I am just about to file my Questionaire against NatWest It would be gresat If I could quote the Judge who threough NAtWest out I am presuming this is Cobbetts If I can quote case and Judge and Date then I believe this is case presedentwell done I'm nextsteve

[Movingon]

well done great stuff I am just starting to go for over £5000 charges from the clydesdale bank, in process of sending letter before action but terrifed as I stay in scotland what do you think my chances are??

 

Same as everyone else's. However you MUST have an address in England to make your claim in the English courts. The courts will send back your cheque for the fees and reject your claim, otherwise.

 

This does NOT however mean that you have to LIVE in England. You simply have to have a CORRESPONDENCE ADDRESS in England.

[Robertxc]

well done great stuff I am just starting to go for over £5000 charges from the clydesdale bank, in process of sending letter before action but terrifed as I stay in scotland what do you think my chances are??

I suggest you go through the Financial Ombudsman instead. You won't be able to claim that much in a Scottish court.

[Movingon]

Anything wrong with my suggestion Robert?

[Robertxc]

Anything wrong with my suggestion Robert?

I think the jury's out on that one. It may be ok, but I wouldn't be surprised if CB made an issue of it. Honest answer, I don't know.

[goforit]

and bookworm doesnt give many of those to Judges im sure

 

 

I wonder if this judge has realised that he will now have every litigant filing in his court now?

 

I do think the banks have a good case to have the order set aside, unless there was a specific statute allowing the judge to strike out in these particular circumstances.

[fendyweather]

What a result. Im chuffed as happy pants for you........... Fendy xxxx

 

Brilliant.

[Rare Breed]

This is indeed great news and a big step forward. However I don't think it sets a precident in law as the case has not been heard (any lawyers please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

What we need is for a case to be heard and defended properly, then we're in business and the banks would have to back down for good.

[hedgey06]

Hmmmmm............ but I can't see nasty west and cobbetts ever doing that as, let's face it, like you say............ the banks would have to back down for good!!! Nice thought though!!!

[Isiris]

This is just a comment and I have PMd the original poster.

 

I am in same situation against a bank for a friend of mine. I wont say the bank yet as I dont want them to have an edge.

 

I obtained a judgement for just over 5K because the defendant did not reply to orders. The judgement was entered by the DJ and he entered it forthwith.

 

Now as it was now over 5k I asked my solicitor for advice and he said a forthwith order was exactly that, it had to be paid there and then. He advised me to Transfer it up (???) and that cost me 64.10 with the High Court Bailiffs. This has been done and I believe the High Court bailiffs will be calling on a branch any time soon.

[Isiris]

I have just been informed that it will be tomorrow.

[mariejader]

He advised me to Transfer it up (???) and that cost me 64.10 with the High Court Bailiffs. This has been done and I believe the High Court bailiffs will be calling on a branch any time soon.

 

 

I have just been informed that it will be tomorrow

 

TV camera's and press present I hope

[goforit]

This is just a comment and I have PMd the original poster.

 

I am in same situation against a bank for a friend of mine. I wont say the bank yet as I dont want them to have an edge.

 

I obtained a judgement for just over 5K because the defendant did not reply to orders. The judgement was entered by the DJ and he entered it forthwith.

 

Now as it was now over 5k I asked my solicitor for advice and he said a forthwith order was exactly that, it had to be paid there and then. He advised me to Transfer it up (???) and that cost me 64.10 with the High Court Bailiffs. This has been done and I believe the High Court bailiffs will be calling on a branch any time soon.

 

I believe you can also claim your Solicitor's fees for advising you prior to claiming, prior to entering judgement, prior to entering warrant etc.

 

However, although I wouldn't purport to be more knowledgeable than your solicitor, I wouldn't think it wise to appear unreasonable even if you can insist that you are paid there and then (i.e. I would of written to the bank and given them 7 - 14 days to pay before ordering enforcement of the execution warrant). Did you solicitor say anything about this?

[Isiris]

It was the Judge who said he could go straight in. He marked the Judgement forthwith, this allowed him to go straight for enforcement.

 

If the judge wanted to allow the bank time, he would have done so when stating when the judgement had to be paid. By marking it forthwith, he made it immediately enforcable

[goforit]

It was the Judge who said he could go straight in. He marked the Judgement forthwith, this allowed him to go straight for enforcement.

 

If the judge wanted to allow the bank time, he would have done so when stating when the judgement had to be paid. By marking it forthwith, he made it immediately enforcable

 

 

That's what I found unusual. I was under the impression that judges don't like to waste court resources so presumed that the judge in this case would of wanted the bank to be given an a chance to comply with his order before expending the use of court-bailiffs' time.

 

Also, even although the judgement is marked "forthwith" it has to be understood that nothing is insantaneous - it takes time for cheques to come through the post (and sometime the client has to lodge a cheque with the solicitor first) - if things go wrong and it is decided the judge acted ultra vires (i.e. outwith his authority)and his order is recalled, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the act, of immediately instructing bailiffs to repossess a high-street bank's property (who, let's face it aren't going to run off into the night) without giving them an oppurtunity to satisfy the judgement against them, is viewed as being unreasonable when the matter of costs arises.

 

Just my two pence. I would hate for someone to be hit with a big bill.

[goforit]

Hi all

 

Just to update you , I submitted my request for Judgement today (form N225) at Reading County Court. .

 

Now I wait for this to be processed by the court. ( approx 5 days). They said I should give the Bank 28 days to respond??

 

Example of.

[Isiris]

i undersatnd what you are saying goforit but on the other end of the scale, IF we were not allowed to use the High Court Bailiffs when we have obtained a judgement, the process would not allow us too.

 

This banks solicitors has had 3 faxes from the claimant advising of what will happen and that ultimately once judgement is obtained, the bailiffs will be used.

 

The court in question once in receipt of the writ of fifa, processed this instantly.

 

The bailiffs have also advised that even if the claimant was in receipt of the cheque,they could still act as it is not cleared funds but they also said they would expect to be asked to hold to see if the cheque does clear.

 

To be honest, how many chances are we supposed to give the banks before we use the power of the law that is there for all.

[Isiris]

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general/79468-high-court-bailiffs-recover.html#post701595