• Welcome to the LegalBeagles Consumer and Legal Forum.
    Please Register to get the most out of the forum. Registration is free and only needs a username and email address.
    REGISTER
    Please do not post your full name, reference numbers or any identifiable details on the forum.

Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

Collapse
Loading...
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

    Originally posted by basa48 View Post
    So keep it vague right up to skeleton argument, right??

    BTW does a skeleton argument have to be submitted to the opposition, if so how long before the hearing.

    I have a hearing date and date for WS / exchange docs.
    skeletons normally 2-3 days before trial.

    unless the Court directs otherwise
    I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

    If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

    I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

    You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

    Comment


    • #77
      Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

      Seems the Lord Justices have moved fast on this one

      Judgment was returned to me this AM

      So here it is
      I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

      If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

      I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

      You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

      Comment


      • #78
        Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

        What a sane and well reasoned case and judgement. Thanks Pt.

        Comment


        • #79
          Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

          you are very welcome
          I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

          If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

          I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

          You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

          Comment


          • #80
            Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

            Originally posted by pt2537 View Post
            you are very welcome

            Para seven is sweet.

            Comment


            • #81
              Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

              Originally posted by Ihaterbs View Post
              Para seven is sweet.
              very sweet
              I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

              If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

              I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

              You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

              Comment


              • #82
                Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                Originally posted by Ihaterbs View Post
                Para seven is sweet.
                Maybe, but 24 / 25 not so much:

                24. On the one hand it is for the claimant to prove its case, and it has not done so on its own documents. On the other hand, first the point was not taken below; and secondly the effect of Section 78 is only suspensory so that if the claimant can give further evidence, either by finding the correct version of the terms and conditions in HFC’s archives inherited from Beneficial Bank or by putting in evidence as to the interest rates prevailing in the summer of 1998 or in some other manner, the claimant may yet be able to prove its case and to comply with the obligation under Section 78, in which case it may be that it will become entitled to judgment. It is accepted, and there are first instance authorities for this, that failure to comply with Section 78 does not prevent a creditor from starting proceedings, but it does prevent a creditor from obtaining judgment.

                25. Accordingly, there may be a case for this Court on allowing the appeal to remit the case to the county court so as to give the claimant an opportunity to put in further evidence and to try again to comply at last with the request made under Section 78 in February 2007 rather than to dismiss the claim entirely. Whatever order should be made in consequence, however, I would allow the appeal and set aside the judge’s order on the basis that the claimant has not shown that the documents in evidence are a true copy of the agreement between the defendant and Beneficial Bank in July 1998 and therefore has not shown that the obligation under Section 78, which arose on the request made in February 2007, has been complied with.
                They were out to get me!! But now it's too late!!

                Comment


                • #83
                  Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                  Originally posted by basa48 View Post
                  Maybe, but 24 / 25 not so much:
                  I think this applies for this judgment only and wouldn't be allowed if the claimant failed to rectify a sec 78 breach before trial at county court level.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                    Originally posted by Ihaterbs View Post
                    I think this applies for this judgment only and wouldn't be allowed if the claimant failed to rectify a sec 78 breach before trial at county court level.
                    yes, the fact was that the defendant hadnt taken the point with the lower court judge,

                    Had it been tried then the appeal judges were clear on the johnson v gorewood point from their discussions with both counsel
                    I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

                    If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

                    I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

                    You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                      Originally posted by pt2537 View Post
                      yes, the fact was that the defendant hadnt taken the point with the lower court judge,

                      Had it been tried then the appeal judges were clear on the johnson v gorewood point from their discussions with both counsel
                      Which was?.... excuse my ignorance.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                        Originally posted by Ihaterbs View Post
                        Which was?.... excuse my ignorance.
                        Well, the interest rate point hadnt been raised until the appeal court,

                        So , the judges took the view that issue estoppel didnt arise as there had been no actual adjudication on that point,

                        however if it had been tried and the judge still found that it was enforceable then they have had their bite of the cherry
                        I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

                        If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

                        I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

                        You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                          Originally posted by pt2537 View Post
                          Well, the interest rate point hadnt been raised until the appeal court,

                          So , the judges took the view that issue estoppel didnt arise as there had been no actual adjudication on that point,

                          however if it had been tried and the judge still found that it was enforceable then they have had their bite of the cherry
                          Thanks. Link below explains.


                          Res Judicata

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                            Pt,

                            I note the judgmnent calls for counsel's submissions on the consequences. Has your counsel made their submissions?

                            If not I have some pointers for them if I could send them to you by PM.

                            Dad

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                              Originally posted by dad View Post
                              Pt,

                              I note the judgmnent calls for counsel's submissions on the consequences. Has your counsel made their submissions?

                              If not I have some pointers for them if I could send them to you by PM.

                              Dad
                              yes they did and the order has been made,
                              I work for Roach Pittis Solicitors. I give my free time available to helping other on the forum and would be happy to try and assist informally where needed. Any posts I make on LegalBeagles are for information and discussion purposes only and shouldn't be seen as legal advice. Any advice I provide is without liability.

                              If you need to contact me please email me on Pt@roachpittis.co.uk .

                              I have been involved in leading consumer credit and data protection cases including Harrison v Link Financial Limited (High Court), Grace v Blackhorse (Court of Appeal) and also Kotecha v Phoenix Recoveries (Court of Appeal) along with a number of other reported cases and often blog about all things consumer law orientated.

                              You can also follow my blog on consumer credit here.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Re: Phoenix Recoveries v Kotecha Jan 2011

                                Now up there on Bailii

                                http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2011/105.html

                                Comment

                                View our Terms and Conditions

                                LegalBeagles Group uses cookies to enhance your browsing experience and to create a secure and effective website. By using this website, you are consenting to such use.To find out more and learn how to manage cookies please read our Cookie and Privacy Policy.

                                If you would like to opt in, or out, of receiving news and marketing from LegalBeagles Group Ltd you can amend your settings at any time here.


                                If you would like to cancel your registration please Contact Us. We will delete your user details on request, however, any previously posted user content will remain on the site with your username removed and 'Guest' inserted.
                                Working...
                                X